Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2020; 33(10): 966-970
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688921
Original Article

Ten-Year Average Full Follow-up and Evaluation of a Contoured Focal Resurface Prosthesis (HemiCAP) in Patients in the United Kingdom

Sam Nahas 
1   Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Howlands, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
,
Mohammed Monem
1   Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Howlands, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
,
Lily Li
1   Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Howlands, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
,
Akash Patel
1   Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Howlands, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
,
Harish Parmar
1   Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Howlands, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

A significant number of patients are affected by localized articular damage that is appropriate neither for traditional arthroplasty nor for biological repair. A focal resurfacing system using a matched contoured articular prosthetic (HemiCAP) has been introduced for the treatment of such cases. Independent long-term results of these implants are limited. We retrospectively evaluated the use of this resurfacing system in 14 patients (13 males, 1 female), with a mean age of 40.3 years (range: 28–49), with focal femoral condyle defects. The same consultant orthopaedic surgeon performed all procedures. Our primary outcome measure was revision rate. Secondary outcome measures included radiographic evaluation (prosthesis migration signs, radiolucency), patient-reported functional evaluation (knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores), and complications. A total of 10 patients were treated on the medial femoral condyle, 2 were treated on the lateral condyle, and 2 received bicondylar implants (14 in total). Average follow-up was 107 months (range: 59–135). Three patients were lost to follow-up at the time of study. One patient was excluded from the study. Of the 10 left, 2 had to be revised, leading the survival rate to be 80% at 9.4 years. In four contactable patients, average Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes score at 121 months postsurgery (9.75 years) was 92.9 (as compared with 57.7 preoperatively). There were no complications. This series demonstrates that focal resurfacing is a safe, suitable, and useful temporizing step in knee arthroplasty surgery. The use of the focal resurfacing implant in this way allows the delay in transition to knee arthroplasty. This series shows an excellent functional outcome for remaining implants at average 10 years, with low complication rates.

Keywords

HemiCAP - osteochondral plug - osteoarthritis - knee

Note

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.




Publication History

Received: 08 August 2018

Accepted: 05 April 2019

Article published online:
24 May 2019

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Schindler IV OS. Articular cartilage surgery in the knee. Orthop Trauma 2010; 24 (02) 107-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Steinwachs MR, Guggi T, Kreuz PC. Marrow stimulation techniques. Injury 2008; 39 (01) 26-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Li Z, Zhu T, Fan W. Osteochondral autograft transplantation or autologous chondrocyte implantation for large cartilage defects of the knee: a meta-analysis. Cell Tissue Bank 2016; 17 (01) 59-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pareek A, Reardon PJ, Maak TG, Levy BA, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ. Long-term outcomes after osteochondral autograft transfer: a systematic review at mean follow-up of 10.2 years. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (06) 1174-1184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bentley G, Biant LC, Vijayan S, Macmull S, Skinner JA, Carrington RW. Minimum ten-year results of a prospective randomised study of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for symptomatic articular cartilage lesions of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (04) 504-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pareek A, Carey JL, Reardon PJ, Peterson L, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ. Long-term outcomes after autologous chondrocyte implantation: a systematic review at mean follow-up of 11.4 years. Cartilage 2016; 7 (04) 298-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Arthrosurface. Technique Guide: Femoral Condyle Arthroplasty. HemiCAP. Accessed October 23, 2017 at: https://www.arthrosurface.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FemoralCondyle_TechGuide1.pdf
    PubMed
  • 8 Becher C, Cantiller EB. Focal articular prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee: 12-year follow-up of two cases and review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017; 137 (09) 1307-1317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Becher C, Kalbe C, Thermann H. , et al. Minimum 5-year results of focal articular prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131 (08) 1135-1143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bollars P, Bosquet M, Vandekerckhove B, Hardeman F, Bellemans J. Prosthetic inlay resurfacing for the treatment of focal, full thickness cartilage defects of the femoral condyle: a bridge between biologics and conventional arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (09) 1753-1759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Laursen JO, Lind M. Treatment of full-thickness femoral cartilage lesions using condyle resurfacing prosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 746-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pascual-Garrido C, Daley E, Verma NN, Cole BJ. A comparison of the outcomes for cartilage defects of the knee treated with biologic resurfacing versus focal metallic implants. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (02) 364-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hobbs H, Ketse-Matiwane N, van der Merwe W, Posthumus M. Focal full thickness articular cartilage lesions treated with an articular resurfacing prosthesis in the middle-aged. SA Orthop J Summer 2013; 12 (04) 41-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Patel A, Haider Z, Anand A, Spicer D. Early results of patellofemoral inlay resurfacing arthroplasty using the HemiCap Wave prosthesis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2017; 25 (01) 2309499017692705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zicaro JP, Yacuzzi C, Astoul Bonorino J, Carbo L, Costa-Paz M. Patellofemoral arthritis treated with resurfacing implant: clinical outcome and complications at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee 2017; 24 (06) 1485-1491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Feucht MJ, Cotic M, Beitzel K. , et al. A matched-pair comparison of inlay and onlay trochlear designs for patellofemoral arthroplasty: no differences in clinical outcome but less progression of osteoarthritis with inlay designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (09) 2784-2791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Imhoff AB, Feucht MJ, Meidinger G, Schöttle PB, Cotic M. Prospective evaluation of anatomic patellofemoral inlay resurfacing: clinical, radiographic, and sports-related results after 24 months. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (05) 1299-1307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Goebel L, Kohn D, Madry H. Biological reconstruction of the osteochondral unit after failed focal resurfacing of a chondral defect in the knee. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (11) 2911-2916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Annual Reports 2017. Accessed January 1, 2018 at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2017
    PubMed
  • 20 Chen D, Shen J, Zhao W. , et al. Osteoarthritis: toward a comprehensive understanding of pathological mechanism. Bone Res 2017; 5: 16044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar