Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Failure of primary cartilage restoration procedures of the knee that proceed to necessitating revision cartilage procedures represent a challenging clinical scenario with variable outcomes reported in previous literature.
Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and adverse events after revision cartilage restoration procedures of the knee for failed primary cartilage procedures.
Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods: The PubMed, OVID/MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2023 for trials reporting on the outcomes of revision cartilage restoration procedures of the knee. Information pertaining to rates of failure, reoperations, graft-related complications, and patient-reported outcome measures were extracted. A meta-analysis using inverse-variance proportion models using Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformations and DerSimonian-Laird random-effects estimators was constructed to quantitatively describe the cumulative incidence of adverse events.
Results: Sixteen studies (1361 patients; mean age, 35.7 ± 9.3 years) were included. The most frequently performed revision cartilage procedure was autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI; n = 755 [55.5%]). The overall rate of failure was 25.1% (95% CI, 14.4%-37.3%) at a mean 6.5 years (range, 2-26 years). The majority of studies (n = 9) reported a failure rate exceeding 20%. A significant reduction in failure was observed in favor of the revision osteochondral allograft cohort (19.0% [75/395] vs 35.7% [273/764]; relative risk, 0.63; < .0001) compared with the revision ACI cohort. The pooled all-cause reoperation event rate was 40.8%, which ranged between 18.2% and 71.4% (13 studies). Of these studies, 12 reported reoperation rates exceeding 20%, and 7 reported rates exceeding 40%. The pooled graft-related complication event rate was 27.2%, which ranged between 5.4% and 56.6% (11 studies). Notably, all analyses demonstrated considerable or moderate heterogeneity, potentially influencing the observed variability in pooled effect estimates.
Conclusion: One of every 4 patients may experience a secondary failure after undergoing a revision cartilage procedure. Revision using an osteochondral allograft may confer a meaningful reduction in the risk of failure relative to revision using ACI. High rates of graft-related complications and reoperations are also frequently observed in this population, highlighting the challenge of treating patients with failed primary treatment of chondral or osteochondral defects of the knee.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03635465241260271 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!