The AMADEUS score is not a sufficient predictor for functional outcome after autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) of the knee: data from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU).

INTRODUCTION: The AMADEUS (Area Measurement And DEpth and Underlying Structures) score has advanced to a commonly used tool for MRI-based chondral defect severity grading prior to cartilage knee surgery. It was the intention of this study to assess the AMADEUS for a potential correlation with clinical data by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: A total of 51 patients undergoing ACI (autologous chondrocyte implantation) between 2016 and 2022 were found eligible and retrospectively analyzed. All patients were registered in the German Cartilage Registry prior to surgery and follow-up data were collected using the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome score (KOOS), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Form and the numeric rating scale (NRS). Pre-operative MRI images were scored by three raters using the AMADEUS classification system, and an overall AMADEUS score was calculated which was subsequently correlated with pre- and post-operative PROMs. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 32.67 ± 8.37 years and mean defect size area 343.04 mm2 ± 139.45 mm2. No correlative capacity of the pre- and postoperative IKDC, KOOS or NRS scores was found with the AMADEUS final score or any of its subscores. From the pre- to postoperative visit, a significant improvement of the PROMs (IKDC: 45.53 ± 21.00 vs. 59.83 ± 17.93, p = 0.04; KOOS Pain: 58.00 ± 16.70 vs. 76.06 ± 19.20, p = 0.03; KOOS ADL: 64.17 ± 18.76 vs. 82.11 ± 16.68, p < 0.01; KOOS Sports: 26.11 ± 18.52 vs. 50.56 ± 23.94, p = 0.01; KOOS QOL: 25.50 ± 14.26 ± 45.28 ± 19.03, p = 0.00) was found. Intraclass correlation coefficients showed an overall good interrater agreement for the AMADEUS total score (ICC = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Study results suggest no correlative capacity of the AMADEUS with routinely used PROMs in patients undergoing ACI. Therefore, radiographically assessed cartilage defect characteristics poorly translate to pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome data.

Epidemiology and Trends in Cartilage Surgery of the Foot and Ankle in Germany: An Analysis of National Healthcare Billing and Reporting Data from 2006 to 2020.

Background and objectives: Cartilage surgery constitutes a standard intervention in foot and ankle procedures. Currently, there is a lack of epidemiological data on its frequency, age distribution, and surgical options for cartilage surgery. This study aimed to investigate the current landscape of cartilage surgery in Germany and identify the most common procedures from an epidemiological standpoint. Materials and methods: Medical billing and reporting data from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, encompassing the period 2006-2020, was examined, including all foot and ankle cartilage surgical procedures (summarized under OPS codes 5-812 and 5-801). The dataset incorporated information on the affected joint, patient age and sex, and surgery type. Each surgical procedure was categorized as "debridement", "regeneration" or "refixation". Linear and nonlinear regression analyses were employed, with a statistical significance threshold of 0.05. Results: From the total of 136,501 procedures conducted during the study period, the most frequently performed interventions were microfracture (58,252) and chondroplasty (56,135), and thus, debridement procedures were in the leading position. The use of acellular membranes was the most used regenerative technique (n = 11,414). At the ankle joint, interventions were mostly arthroscopic and in men, while foot cartilage surgeries were preferably performed via open surgery and mostly in women. Age distribution analysis revealed two primary peaks: the first in the 20-25-year-old group (ankle and foot) and the second in the 45-50-year-old group (ankle) and 55-60-year-old group (foot). Refixation and regenerative procedures were more frequent among younger individuals, while debriding procedures were more frequent among older individuals. Regenerative procedures, particularly in the ankle, significantly increased over time. Conclusions: Cartilage surgery of the foot and ankle was common, with two primary age groups predominantly affected. Notably, recent years have witnessed a considerable rise in cartilage regenerative procedures.

Handmade articulating spacer for two-stage exchange at the knee.

OBJECTIVE: Two-stage exchange with implantation of a temporary spacer is considered gold standard treatment for chronic periprosthetic joint infection of the knee. This article describes a simple and safe technique for handmade articulating spacers at the knee. INDICATION: Chronic or relapsing periprosthetic joint infection of the knee. RELATIVE CONTRAINDICATIONS: Known allergy against components of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cements or admixed antibiotics. Inadequate compliance for two-stage exchange. Patient not able to undergo two-stage exchange. Bony defect situation at the tibia or femur leading to collateral ligament insufficiency. Soft tissue damage with need for plastic temporary vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAC) therapy. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Removal of the prosthesis, thorough debridement of necrotic and granulation tissue, tailoring bone cement with antibiotics. Preparation of a tibial and femoral stem. Customizing the tibial and femoral articulating spacer components to bony anatomy and soft tissue tension. Confirmation of correct position by intraoperative radiography. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Protection of the spacer with an external brace. Restricted weight-bearing. Passive range of motion as possible. Intravenous-followed by oral antibiotics. Reimplantation after successful treatment of infection.

Handmade spacers for two-stage exchange at the hip.

OBJECTIVE: Two-stage exchange with implantation of a temporary spacer is the gold standard treatment for chronic periprosthetic joint infection of the hip. This article describes a simple and safe technique for handmade spacers at the hip. INDICATION: Periprosthetic joint infection of the hip. Septic arthritis of the native joint. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Known allergy against components of polymethylmethacrylate bone cements. Inadequate compliance for two-stage exchange. Patient unfit to undergo two-stage exchange. Bony defect situation at the acetabulum impeding stable reduction of the spacer. Bone loss at the femur jeopardizing stable fixation of the stem. Soft tissue damage with need for plastic temporary vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAC) therapy. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Tailoring bone cement with antibiotics. Preparation of a metal endoskeleton. Molding of spacer stem and head by hand. Customizing spacer off-sets to bony anatomy and soft tissue tension. Implantation assuring rotational stability at the femur with a bone cement collar. Confirmation of correct position by intraoperative radiography. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Restricted weight-bearing. Range of motion as possible. Reimplantation after successful treatment of infection.

Effect of Mobilization on the Day of Surgery After Total Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly, Obese, and Severely Diseased Patients.

BACKGROUND: Mobilization on the day of surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is widely used. However, elderly, obese and severely diseased patients are often excluded from early mobilization. Therefore, it was our aim to investigate the effect of mobilization on the day of surgery with focus on these patients. METHODS: 167 patients underwent THA via direct anterior approach. Exclusion criterion was the use of wound drainage. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Day 0 group was mobilized 4 hours after surgery, day 1 group the day after surgery. Primary outcome was the time to readiness for discharge (TRD). Secondary outcome was the occurrence of adverse events (vertigo, nausea, vomiting, severe pain) on the day of surgery. Group comparisons were calculated with respect to elderly (age ≥75 years), obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and severely diseased patients (ASA≥3). RESULTS: TRD was shorter in day 0 group (3.25 vs 3.99 days, P < .01). The rate of adverse events on the day of surgery was similar in both groups (0.28 vs 0.25, P = .73). TRD differences were higher within all subgroups (3.85vs4.81; 3.25vs4.39; 4.08vs5.11days) while the rate of immediate adverse events was reduced (0.15vs0.24; 0.25vs0.3; 0.25vs0.33). Within 90 days 3 patients of group 0 underwent revision surgery, none of group 1 (P = .12). CONCLUSION: Mobilization on the day of surgery reduces the TRD without increasing the rate of immediate adverse events, regardless of age, BMI and ASA score. Future studies are needed to investigate if early mobility increases the 90-days complication rate.