Skip Navigation LinksHome » Articles » OSTEOCHONDRITIS DISSECANS OF THE KNEE

OSTEOCHONDRITIS DISSECANS OF THE KNEE

CONQUERING A CHALLENGING ENEMY

 

– Written by Theodorakys Marín Fermín, Venezuela, Bruno Olory, and Khalid Al-Khelaifi, Qatar

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Epidemiology and Clinical Presentation 

Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) is an osteochondral unit disease characterized by the sequestration of subchondral bone and subsequent delamination and instability of the overlying cartilage1-3. König was the first to coin the term in 1888 and it has become an increasing cause of knee pain among young patients, with a prevalence of 15-29 per 100,000 population4,5. The most commonly affected location is the lateral surface of the medial femoral condyle, followed by the lateral femoral condyle and the patella6.

OCD diagnosis is more frequent during the second decade of life, as an incidental finding or presenting symptoms during physical activity1. It can be categorized as juvenile and adult OCD7. Symptoms include pain, joint effusion, locking or catching, and functional impairment, which can be as severe as those presenting patients waiting for a knee replacement2,8.

 

Pathogenesis and Natural History

OCD pathogenesis is not entirely understood. Several factors, including biological and mechanical, have been suggested to participate in its development. Genetics, ossification center deficit, endocrine disorders, tibial spine impingement, discoid meniscus, injuries, and overuse remain under discussion as causative factors1.

The typical evolution of the resulting osteochondral lesion is the natural filling of the defect bed with fibrocartilage, a form of cartilage constituted by collagen type I fibers. However, fibrocartilage mechanical properties lack those of hyaline cartilage2,9. Thus, the aim of any treatment in the management of OCD is to preserve a congruent joint with hyaline cartilage and correct alignment to avoid the progression to osteoarthritis2. Therefore, successful long-term treatment outcomes of this condition are of paramount importance, considering that OCD predominantly affects children and adolescents10-12.

 

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING

Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies are essential in diagnosing OCD (Figures 1 and 2), which can be bilateral in 15% of the patients. Anteroposterior, lateral, tunnel, and skyline views compose the battery for examination, the latter when patella involvement is suspected6.

MRI is the definitive imaging study, as it provides the most information about the lesion, including size, volume, presence of loose bodies, and confirming radiographs findings (Figure 3). The fragment appears as a hypointense image in T1, usually extending to the trochlear notch when affecting the medial femoral condyle, with underlying bone edema. Other findings include a subchondral bone puzzle configuration and spicules corresponding to secondary ossification centers6.

Furthermore, T2-weighted images are valuable in assessing fragment stability with high sensitivity and specificity in adults13. High-signal-intensity rim at the interface and extending through the articular cartilage, fluid-filled cysts underneath the lesion, and a focal defect filled with joint fluid are typical of unstable fragments13,14.

Additionally, in juvenile OCD, it is reliable assessing the following signs when suspect fragment instability: interface rim with the same signal intensity as joint fluid, a second outer rim of T2-weighted low-signal intensity, or multiple breaks in the subchondral bone plate on T2-weighted MRI13,15.

 

CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT: THE FIRST-LINE TREATMENT OF STABLE LESIONS

Conservative management remains the first-line treatment for small and stable lesions in young patients. Patient education about disease behavior is of paramount importance, and counseling on the importance of restricting sporting activities16.

Conservative treatment traditionally consists of activity restriction with or without weight-bearing or immobilization, therapeutic strengthening exercises, and modalities such as external shockwave therapy16. A systematic review by Andriolo et al16 revealed an overall healing rate of 61.4% in patients undergoing conservative treatment. However, high variability among the included studies was noted. They also identified several risk factors that potentially contraindicate conservative treatment, like larger lesion size, more severe stages, skeletal maturity, and older age, as well as the presence of joint effusion or locking. Moreover, according to their findings, the only restriction of sports and strenuous activities seems advantageous over further limitations.

It is advisable to limit running, jumping, squatting, or activities with repetitive and compressive stress on the affected knee until symptoms relief and imaging alterations show healing progress16.

 

SURGICAL TREATMENT OPTIONS: AN INSIGHT TO THE ARMAMENTARIUM

Surgical treatment is the preferred approach for symptomatic lesions presenting with joint effusion and locking or catching of the knee2. The size and depth of the lesion, patient's age, activity level, and the presence of degenerative changes play a vital role in the decision-making2,17.

Also, lesions with a higher odd for developing osteoarthritis should be considered individually10. The risk is notably higher in those lesions where incongruity is present, such as type III and IV lesions, according to the International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society (ICRS) (Table 1)2,18.

 

Surgical Procedures

Drilling

Drilling is advisable for stable lesions that failed conservative treatment and OCD ICRS grade I and II lesions19. This procedure aims to create bone channels that allow healing of the osteochondral unit above it6. There are two techniques, trans-articular and retro-articular drilling. Both methods are satisfactory and have shown good results20,21. Kirschner wires can be used for this purpose (Figure 4), with a suggested depth ranging from 18 to 20 mm, if trans-articular. Fluoroscopic control during the procedure is recommended in skeletally immature patients.  Postoperatively, non-weight bearing is advisable for 4 to 6 weeks and should be followed by plain radiographs. With proper rehabilitation, patients can go back to normal sports activities within 4 to 6 months post-operatively6.

 

Fragment Fixation

Fixation is the first surgical option for osteochondral fragments that are unstable or loose6. It has the potential to restore the native cartilage surface and can be performed open or arthroscopically with stimulation of the defect bed2. After assessing the stability of the lesion and confirming its instability, it is critical to debride the subchondral bone underneath the fragment (Figure 5). Moreover, if the subchondral bone is scarce, it is essential to bone graft the void previous to reduction and fixation of the lesion6.

There are several available implants for this purpose, including headless screws, bioabsorbable pins, or nails2. Osteochondral autograft plugs harvested from non-weight bearing areas are also among the options to fix the unstable fragment. Several studies have shown the benefit of bioabsorbable and metallic screws (Figure 6)22,23. Among the advantages of bioabsorbable screws is that the patient does not need further surgery for hardware removal. Correspondingly, the metallic headless screws allow a better and rigid fixation for the fragment, leading to a higher healing rate (Figures 7 to 10).  The patient post-operatively will be non-weight bearing for two months, and if the osteochondral fragment was fixed with a metallic screw, the patient is expected to need another surgery for its removal6.

According to a systematic review by Leland et al24, the rate of radiographic healing after fixation in adult OCD ranges from 67%-100%, with satisfactory improvements in Lysholm and IKDC scores. Although, the quality of literature addressing the fragment healing ability in skeletally mature patients remains scarce.

Reoperations are common complications, accounting for up to 44% of loose body removal. Chondral revision and unplanned removal of hardware are also common causes for reoperations2.

 

Restorative Procedures

Restorative procedures are indicated when the reparative procedures fail or if the osteochondral unit is not repairable from the start. They depend on the size and location of the diseased cartilage.

 

Osteochondral Autograft Transplant (OAT) and Mosaicplasty

In OAT, a mature hyaline cartilage local graft is harvested from a non-weight bearing area of the knee and transplanted, providing immediate coverage of the defect area open or arthroscopically. Similarly, in mosaicplasty, many smaller osteochondral grafts are transplanted to fill a cartilage defect25.

Both techniques have been widely studied and implemented, yielding satisfactory results, especially for OAT. However, as mosaicplasty has been used to treat larger defects, both are not amenable for comparison26. It is essential to point out that the reproduction of curved cartilage areas can be challenging, and thus, such procedures should be done by experienced surgeons27. Additionally, concerns exist regarding mosaicplasty as the spaces between graft plugs are filled with fibrocartilage28.

Medium- and long-term results are satisfactory, particularly when patient selection is driven appropriately2. Active young males (< 40 years old) with cartilage defects < 3cm² have shown to have the best outcomes29.

 

Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis (AMIC)

AMIC is a bone marrow-stimulation augmentation procedure in which a scaffold concentrates and distributes the migrating cells, improving the healing of the cartilage defect2,6. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated AMIC to have similar clinical results as bone marrow stimulation alone at a year. However, AMIC results are maintained up to 5-year follow-up with a superior filling of the defect and quantity of hyaline cartilage and only 7% failure compared to 66% in the microfracture group30,31.

Scaffold versatility lies in the possibility to treat lesions with different sizes and shapes and the lack of need for highly specialized laboratory settings, standing out as a single-stage procedure2. Furthermore, newer techniques remove the need to violate the subchondral bone in the form of bone marrow aspirate concentrate32.

 

Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) and Matrix-Assisted Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI)

ACI has shown good clinical results and better durability when compared to microfractures17. It is a two-stage procedure in which chondrocytes are harvested from a local non-weight bearing zone of the knee and cultured in highly specialized laboratories for a second procedure involving its implantation in the lesion site with or without a scaffold17.

The characteristics of the new cartilage have been reported to be better than those observed in other bone marrow stimulation procedures33. Techniques involving chondrocyte implantation are the preferred method of choice in treating ICRS grade IV full-thickness cartilage injuries and those involving subchondral bone. The latter may benefit from bone grafting and double-layer implementation, the so-called sandwich technique34.

In a systematic review by Sacolick et al17 comprising nine studies, they found that patient-reported outcomes after ACI in OCD were significantly better, with negligible complication and failure rates. The lesion size and age of the patient revealed contrasting differences. Outcomes were better in the young population undergoing surgery, contrasting to adults, where surgery was the preferred approach with less satisfactory results.

Costs of restorative procedures are still their main limitation; despite the gathered evidence, its widespread implementation has not been feasible35-37. Nevertheless, technical developments have allowed translating the same principles to fast isolation protocols from local cartilage donating areas to allow chondrocyte implantation in a single-stage procedure, allowing comparable results to ACI at a lower cost38,39.

 

Osteochondral Allograft

Allograft tissue is also an available option to be considered in larger defects and cartilage revision procedures, yet more as fresh allografts in which superior chondrocyte viability is expected2,40,41. It enables the replacement of a pathologic osteochondral unit by competent, viable, and congruent cartilage regardless of its size3.

Long-term follow-up clinical studies have demonstrated satisfactory outcomes using osteochondral allograft in treating OCD. Sadr et al42 and Murphy et al43 case series reported graft survivorship in more than 90% of patients at ten years, with high satisfaction and only 8% of graft failure.

Limitations to this procedure lie in the availability of tissue and government regulations on human tissues. Also, size matching, congruence, viability, and host-donor compatibility are to be considered. Thus, the successful implementation of this technique is limited to a few countries3.

 

TAKE HOME MESSAGGE

OCD is a disease of the young population that restricts their activity and leads to undesirable outcomes if not treated or diagnosed early10-12.  It should be suspected whenever the patient presents to the clinic with knee swelling or mechanical symptoms and not be overlooked8.

Conservative treatment is the first-line treatment, especially in skeletally immature patients, and surgeons should be vigilant in their follow-up. Also, restricting activities in young patients is difficult, but the patient's family should be involved while this discussion happens in the clinic. Size, location, and bone edema are to be considered when managing activity restriction. Sports activity cessation and a quadriceps-strengthening program is the recommended conservative approach based on the available evidence and should be maintained for six months or upon resolution of primary radiological findings16.

The final goal of treating this disease is maintaining hyaline cartilage to prevent osteoarthritis in the future10. History taking, physical examination, and Imaging modalities can help differentiate between different grades of the disease.  The ultimate goal is to give the fragment the chance to heal by drilling or fixing it back to its anatomic position24,44-47.  If the previous plans failed, surgeons should be familiarized with other restorative procedures. Then, the decision should be based on the size, depth, and location of the diseased fragment.

 

Theodorakys Marín Fermín, M.D.

Orthopaedic Surgeon

Hospital Universitario Periférico de Coche Caracas, Venezuela

 

Bruno Olory, M.D.

Orthopaedic Surgeon

Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital

Doha, Qatar

 

Khalid Al-Khelaifi M.D., F.R.C.S.C.

Orthopaedic Surgeon

Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital

Doha, Qatar

 

Contact: khalid.alkhelaifi@aspetar.com

 

 

References

  1. Andriolo L, Crawford DC, Reale D, Zaffagnini S, Candrian C, Cavicchioli A, Filardo G. Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee: Etiology and Pathogenetic Mechanisms. A Systematic Review. Cartilage. 2020 Jul;11(3):273-290.
  2. Howell M, Liao Q, Gee CW. Surgical Management of Osteochondral Defects of the Knee: An Educational Review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2021 Feb;14(1):60-66.
  3. Filardo G, Andriolo L, Soler F, Berruto M, Ferrua P, Verdonk P, Rongieras F, Crawford DC. Treatment of unstable knee osteochondritis dissecans in the young adult: results and limitations of surgical strategies-The advantages of allografts to address an osteochondral challenge. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Jun;27(6):1726-1738.
  4. Pareek A, Sanders TL, Wu IT, Larson DR, Saris DBF, Krych AJ. Incidence of symptomatic osteochondritis dissecans lesions of the knee: a population-based study in Olmsted County. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017 Oct;25(10):1663-1671.
  5. Crawford DC, Safran MR. Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006 Feb;14(2):90-100.
  6. Accadbled F, Vial J, Sales de Gauzy J. Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Feb;104(1S):S97-S105.
  7. Kocher MS, Tucker R, Ganley TJ, Flynn JM. Management of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: current concepts review. Am J Sports Med. 2006 Jul;34(7):1181-91.
  8. Heir S, Nerhus TK, Røtterud JH, Løken S, Ekeland A, Engebretsen L, Arøen A. Focal cartilage defects in the knee impair quality of life as much as severe osteoarthritis: a comparison of knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score in 4 patient categories scheduled for knee surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):231-7.
  9. Craig W, David JW, Ming HZ. A current review on the biology and treatment of the articular cartilage defects [part I & part II]. J Musculoskelet Res. 2003;7:157–81.
  10. Tan SHS, Tan BSW, Tham WYW, Lim AKS, Hui JH. The incidence and risk factors of osteoarthritis following osteochondritis dissecans of the knees: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Nov 19.
  11. Bruns J, Rayf M, Steinhagen J. Longitudinal long-term results of surgical treatment in patients with osteochondritis dissecans of the femoral condyles. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008 May;16(5):436-41.
  12. Masquijo J, Kothari A. Juvenile osteochondritis dissecans (JOCD) of the knee: current concepts review. EFORT Open Rev. 2019 May 17;4(5):201-212.
  13. Gorbachova T, Melenevsky Y, Cohen M, Cerniglia BW. Osteochondral Lesions of the Knee: Differentiating the Most Common Entities at MRI. Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38(5):1478-1495.
  14. De Smet AA, Ilahi OA, Graf BK. Reassessment of the MR criteria for stability of osteochondritis dissecans in the knee and ankle. Skeletal Radiol. 1996 Feb;25(2):159-63.
  15. Kijowski R, Blankenbaker DG, Shinki K, Fine JP, Graf BK, De Smet AA. Juvenile versus adult osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: appropriate MR imaging criteria for instability. Radiology. 2008 Aug;248(2):571-8.
  16. Andriolo L, Candrian C, Papio T, Cavicchioli A, Perdisa F, Filardo G. Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee - Conservative Treatment Strategies: A Systematic Review. Cartilage. 2019 Jul;10(3):267-277.
  17. Sacolick DA, Kirven JC, Abouljoud MM, Everhart JS, Flanigan DC. The Treatment of Adult Osteochondritis Dissecans with Autologous Cartilage Implantation: A Systematic Review. J Knee Surg. 2019 Nov;32(11):1102-1110.
  18. Brittberg M, Winalski CS. Evaluation of cartilage injuries and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A Suppl 2:58-69.
  19. Goyal D, Keyhani S, Lee EH, Hui JH. Evidence-based status of microfracture technique: a systematic review of level I and II studies. Arthroscopy. 2013 Sep;29(9):1579-88.
  20. Gunton MJ, Carey JL, Shaw CR, Murnaghan ML. Drilling juvenile osteochondritis dissecans: retro- or transarticular? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:1144–51.
  21. Rammal H, Gicquel P, Schneider L, Karger C, Clavert JM. Erratum to: juvenile osteochondritis of femoral condyles: treatment with transchondral drilling. Analysis of 40 cases. J Children Orthop 2014;8:449.
  22. Yellin JL, Gans I, Carey JL, Shea KG, Ganley TJ. The surgical management osteochondritis dissecans of the knee in the skeletally immature: a survey of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) membership. J Pediatr Orthop 2017;37:491–9.
  23. Tabaddor RR, Banffy MB, Andersen JS, McFeely E, Ogunwole O, Micheli LJ, et al. Fixation of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans lesions of the knee using poly 96L/4D-lactide copolymer bioabsorbable implants. J Pediatr Orthop2010;30:14–20.
  24. Leland DP, Bernard CD, Camp CL, Nakamura N, Saris DBF, Krych AJ. Does Internal Fixation for Unstable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Skeletally Mature Knee Work? A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2019 Aug;35(8):2512-2522.
  25. Kizaki K, El-Khechen HA, Yamashita F, Duong A, Simunovic N, Musahl V, Ayeni OR. Arthroscopic versus Open Osteochondral Autograft Transplantation (Mosaicplasty) for Cartilage Damage of the Knee: A Systematic Review. J Knee Surg. 2021 Jan;34(1):94-107.
  26. Chahal J, Gross AE, Gross C, Mall N, Dwyer T, Chahal A, Whelan DB, Cole BJ. Outcomes of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. Arthroscopy. 2013 Mar;29(3):575-88.
  27. Mosaicplasty for symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. IPG607. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg607
  28. Wang CJ. Treatment of focal articular cartilage lesions of the knee with autogenous osteochondral grafts. A 2- to 4-year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002 Apr;122(3):169-72.
  29. Solheim E, Hegna J, Inderhaug E, Øyen J, Harlem T, Strand T. Results at 10-14 years after microfracture treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 May;24(5):1587-93.
  30. Volz M, Schaumburger J, Frick H, Grifka J, Anders S. A randomized controlled trial demonstrating sustained benefit of Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis over microfracture at five years. Int Orthop. 2017 Apr;41(4):797-804.
  31. Stanish WD, McCormack R, Forriol F, Mohtadi N, Pelet S, Desnoyers J, Restrepo A, Shive MS. Novel scaffold-based BST-CarGel treatment results in superior cartilage repair compared with microfracture in a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Sep 18;95(18):1640-50.
  32. Gobbi A, Whyte GP. Long-term Clinical Outcomes of One-Stage Cartilage Repair in the Knee With Hyaluronic Acid-Based Scaffold Embedded With Mesenchymal Stem Cells Sourced From Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate. Am J Sports Med. 2019 Jun;47(7):1621-1628.
  33. Polousky JD, Albright J. Salvage techniques in osteochondritis dissecans. Clin Sports Med. 2014 Apr;33(2):321-33.
  34. Minas T, Ogura T, Headrick J, Bryant T. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation "Sandwich" Technique Compared With Autologous Bone Grafting for Deep Osteochondral Lesions in the Knee. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Feb;46(2):322-332.
  35. Samuelson EM, Brown DE. Cost-effectiveness analysis of autologous chondrocyte implantation: a comparison of periosteal patch versus type I/III collagen membrane. Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jun;40(6):1252-8.
  36. Everhart JS, Campbell AB, Abouljoud MM, Kirven JC, Flanigan DC. Cost-efficacy of Knee Cartilage Defect Treatments in the United States. Am J Sports Med. 2020 Jan;48(1):242-251.
  37. Mistry H, Connock M, Pink J, Shyangdan D, Clar C, Royle P, Court R, Biant LC, Metcalfe A, Waugh N. Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017 Feb;21(6):1-294.
  38. Słynarski K, de Jong WC, Snow M, Hendriks JAA, Wilson CE, Verdonk P. Single-Stage Autologous Chondrocyte-Based Treatment for the Repair of Knee Cartilage Lesions: Two-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Single-Arm Multicenter Study. Am J Sports Med. 2020 May;48(6):1327-1337.
  39. Saris TFF, de Windt TS, Kester EC, Vonk LA, Custers RJH, Saris DBF. Five-Year Outcome of 1-Stage Cell-Based Cartilage Repair Using Recycled Autologous Chondrons and Allogenic Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: A First-in-Human Clinical Trial. Am J Sports Med. 2021 Mar;49(4):941-947.
  40. Sherman SL, Garrity J, Bauer K, Cook J, Stannard J, Bugbee W. Fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation for the knee: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014 Feb;22(2):121-33.
  41. Pisanu G, Cottino U, Rosso F, Blonna D, Marmotti AG, Bertolo C, Rossi R, Bonasia DE. Large Osteochondral Allografts of the Knee: Surgical Technique and Indications. Joints. 2018 Mar 13;6(1):42-53.
  42. Sadr KN, Pulido PA, McCauley JC, Bugbee WD. Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in Patients With Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee. Am J Sports Med. 2016 Nov;44(11):2870-2875.
  43. Murphy RT, Pennock AT, Bugbee WD. Osteochondral allograft transplantation of the knee in the pediatric and adolescent population. Am J Sports Med. 2014 Mar;42(3):635-40.
  44. Webb JE, Lewallen LW, Christophersen C, Krych AJ, McIntosh AL. Clinical outcome of internal fixation of unstable juvenile osteochondritis dissecans lesions of the knee. Orthopedics. 2013 Nov;36(11):e1444-9.
  45. Adachi N, Deie M, Nakamae A, Okuhara A, Kamei G, Ochi M. Functional and radiographic outcomes of unstable juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee treated with lesion fixation using bioabsorbable pins. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015 Jan;35(1):82-8.
  46. Wu IT, Custers RJH, Desai VS, Pareek A, Stuart MJ, Saris DBF, Krych AJ. Internal Fixation of Unstable Osteochondritis Dissecans: Do Open Growth Plates Improve Healing Rate? Am J Sports Med. 2018 Aug;46(10):2394-2401.
  47. Orth P, Gao L, Madry H. Microfracture for cartilage repair in the knee: a systematic review of the contemporary literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Mar;28(3):670-706.

 

 

 

Switch Language: list thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Category

Sports Surgery

Volume 10
Targeted Topic - Knee Joint Preservation
view all articles in this issue

Article Images

Copyright © Aspetar Sports Medicine Journal 2021