Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2012-5
Axial Load-Bearing Capacity of an Osteochondral Autograft Stabilized With a Resorbable Osteoconductive Bone Cement Compared With a Press-Fit Graft in a Bovine Model
Background: Osteochondral autografts in mosaicplasty are inserted in a press-fit fashion, and hence, patients are kept nonweightbearing for up to 2 months after surgery to allow bone healing and prevent complications. Very little has been published regarding alternative fixation techniques of those grafts.
Hypothesis: Osteochondral autografts stabilized with a resorbable osteoconductive bone cement would have a greater load-bearing capacity than standard press-fit grafts.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Biomechanical testing was conducted on 8 pairs of cadaveric bovine distal femurs. For the first 4 pairs, 6 single osteochondral autografts were inserted in a press-fit fashion on one femur. On the contralateral femur, 6 grafts were stabilized with a calcium triglyceride osteoconductive bone cement. For the 4 remaining pairs of femurs, 4 groups of 3 adjacent press-fit grafts were inserted on one femur, whereas on the contralateral femur, grafts were cemented. After a maturation period of 48 hours, axial loading was applied on all single grafts and on the middle graft of each 3-in-a-row series.
Results: For the single-graft configuration, median loads required to sink the press-fit and cemented grafts by 2 and 3 mm were 281.87 N versus 345.56 N (P = .015) and 336.29 N versus 454.08 N (P = .018), respectively. For the 3-in-a-row configuration, median loads required to sink the press-fit and cemented grafts by 2 and 3 mm were 260.31 N versus 353.47 N (P = .035) and 384.83 N versus 455.68 N (P = .029), respectively.
Conclusion: Fixation of osteochondral grafts using bone cement appears to improve immediate stability over the original mosaicplasty technique for both single- and multiple-graft configurations.
Clinical Relevance: Achieving greater primary stability of osteochondral grafts could potentially accelerate postoperative recovery, allowing early weightbearing and physical therapy.
AthanasiouKARosenwasserMPBuckwalterJAMalininTIMowVC. Interspecies comparisons of in situ intrinsic mechanical properties of distal femoral cartilage. J Orthop Res. 1991;9(3):330-340.
2.
BehrensJCWalkerPSShojiH. Variations in strength and structure of cancellous bone at the knee. J Biomech. 1974;7(3):201-207.
3.
BorazjaniBHChenACBaeWC. Effect of impact on chondrocyte viability during insertion of human osteochondral grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(9):1934-1943.
4.
BurginLVAspdenRM. Impact testing to determine the mechanical properties of articular cartilage in isolation and on bone. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;19(2):703-711.
5.
ChangoorAHurtigMBJohn RuncimanR. Osteochondral graft fixation using a bioresorbable bone cement. J Biomech. 2006;39(15):2887-2892.
6.
Doctors Research Group Inc. Kryptonite Osteoconductive Adhesive: Technical Monograph. Southbury, Connecticut: Doctors Research Group Inc; 2009.
7.
DozinBMalpeliMCanceddaR. Comparative evaluation of autologous chondrocyte implantation and mosaicplasty: a multicentered randomized clinical trial. Clin J Sport Med. 2005;15(4):220-226.
8.
DuchowJHessTKohnD. Primary stability of press-fit-implanted osteochondral grafts: influence of graft size, repeated insertion, and harvesting technique. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(1):24-27.
9.
EbertJRRobertsonWBLloydDG. Traditional vs accelerated approaches to post-operative rehabilitation following matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI): comparison of clinical, biomechanical and radiographic outcomes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(10):1131-1140.
10.
EvansPJMiniaciAHurtigMB. Manual punch versus power harvesting of osteochondral grafts. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(3):306-310.
11.
FritzJJanssenPGaissmaierCScheweBWeiseK. Articular cartilage defects in the knee: basics, therapies and results. Injury. 2008;39Suppl 1:S50-S57.
12.
HaklarUTuzunerTUygurIKocaogluBGuvenO. The effect of overlapping on the primary stability of osteochondral grafts in mosaicplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(7): 651-654.
13.
HangodyLDobosJBalóEPanicsGHangodyLRBerkesI. Clinical experiences with autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty in an athletic population: a 17-year prospective multicenter study. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(6):1125-1133.
14.
HangodyLKishGKarpatiZ. Autogenous osteochondral graft technique for replacing knee cartilage defects in dogs. Orthopaedics Int Ed. 1997;5(3):175-181.
15.
HangodyLKishGKárpátiZSzerbIUdvarhelyiI. Arthroscopic autogenous osteochondral mosaicplasty for the treatment of femoral condylar articular defects: a preliminary report. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1997;5(4):262-267.
16.
HangodyLVásárhelyiGHangodyLR. Autologous osteochondral grafting: technique and long-term results. Injury. 2008;39(suppl1):S32-S39.
17.
HuangFSSimonianPTNormanAGClarkJM. Effects of small incongruities in a sheep model of osteochondral autografting. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(8):1842-1848.
18.
KockNBVan SusanteJLCBumaPVan KampenAVerdonschotN. Press-fit stability of an osteochondral autograft: influence of different plug length and perfect depth alignment. Acta Orthop. 2006;77(3):422-428.
19.
KordásG. The role of primary stability in mosaicplasty: a review of the literature. Joint Dis Rel Surg. 2007;18(3):150-155.
20.
KordásGSzabóJSHangodyL. The effect of drill-hole length on the primary stability of osteochondral grafts in mosaicplasty. Orthopedics. 2005;28(4):401-404.
21.
KordásGSzabóJSHangodyL. Primary stability of osteochondral grafts used in mosaicplasty. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(4):414-421.
22.
LiebschnerMAK. Biomechanical considerations of animal models used in tissue engineering of bone. Biomaterials. 2004;25(9):1697-1714.
23.
MarcacciMKonEZaffagniniS. Multiple osteochondral arthroscopic grafting (mosaicplasty) for cartilage defects of the knee: prospective study results at 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(4):462-470.
24.
MatsusueYYamamuroTHamaH. Arthroscopic multiple osteochondral transplantation to the chondral defect in the knee associated with anterior cruciate ligament disruption. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(3):318-321.
25.
McLachlinSDSalehKAGurrKR. Comparative assessment of sacral screw loosening augmented with PMMA versus a calcium triglyceride bone cement. Spine. 2011;36(11):E699-E704.
26.
NakabayashiYWeversHWCookeTDGriffinM. Bone strength and histomorphometry of the distal femur. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9(3):307-315.
27.
ParkSHungCTAteshianGA. Mechanical response of bovine articular cartilage under dynamic unconfined compression loading at physiological stress levels. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12(1):65-73.
28.
PatilSButcherWD’LimaDD. Effect of osteochondral graft insertion forces on chondrocyte viability. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(9):1726-1732.
29.
PearceSGHurtigMBClarnetteR. An investigation of 2 techniques for optimizing joint surface congruency using multiple cylindrical osteochondral autografts. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(1):50-55.
30.
SwanKGJrRabalaisRDMcCartyE. Osteochondral autograft plug transfer for cartilage lesions. Techniques in Knee Surgery. 2006;5(3):149.
31.
SzerbIHangodyLDuskaZKaposiNP. Mosaicplasty: long-term follow-up. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2005;63(1-2):54-62.
32.
VossJRLuYEdwardsRBBogdanskeJJMarkelMD. Effects of thermal energy on chondrocyte viability. Am J Vet Res. 2006;67(10):1708-1712.
33.
WhitesideRABryantJTJakobRPMainil-VarletPWyssUP. Short-term load bearing capacity of osteochondral autografts implanted by the mosaicplasty technique: an in vitro porcine model. J Biomech. 2003;36(8):1203-1208.
34.
WhitesideRAJakobRPWyssUPMainil-VarletP. Impact loading of articular cartilage during transplantation of osteochondral autograft. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(9):1285-1291.
