Responsiveness of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Large Knee Articular Cartilage Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:

Cartilage transplantation is commonly used to treat large (>4 cm²) articular cartilage defects of the knee. The 2 most common transplants are osteochondral allograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation. Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to determine the efficacy of treatment, but it is unknown which measures are the most effective.

Purpose:

To report the multiple PROMs used after large knee articular cartilage transplantation surgery and to compare the responsiveness between them.

Study Design:

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases was performed. A total of 181 articles met inclusion criteria. Patient and study characteristics were extracted, including pre- and postoperative means for PROMs. From the articles that met inclusion criteria for responsiveness analysis (2+ PROMs reported, 1-year minimum follow-up, reported pre- and postoperative means and standard deviations; n = 131), the authors compared the responsiveness between PROM instruments using effect size and relative efficiency (RE) if a PROM could be compared with another in ≥10 articles.

Results:

A total of 10,015 patients (10,093 knees; mean age, 34.8 years; mean body mass index, 26.1) were included in this study. The mean follow-up time was 58.3 months (range, 1.5-247.2 months), imaging findings were reported in 80 articles (44.2%), patient satisfaction was reported in 39 articles (21.5%), and range of motion was reported in 10 articles (5.5%). There were 58 unique PROM instruments identified, with the most used being the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (n = 118; 65.2%), followed by Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Pain (n = 58; 32.0%), KOOS Sport and Recreation (n = 58; 32.0%), KOOS Quality of Life (n = 57; 31.5%), KOOS Activities of Daily Living (n = 57; 31.5%), and KOOS Symptoms (n = 57; 31.5%). Overall, IKDC was found to have the greatest effect size (1.68) and the best responsiveness of the other PROMs, which include KOOS Pain (RE, 1.38), KOOS Symptoms (RE, 3.06), KOOS Activities of Daily Living (RE, 1.65), KOOS Sport and Recreation (RE, 1.44), Lysholm (RE, 1.76), and Tegner (RE, 1.56).

Conclusion:

The IKDC is the most responsive PROM after large knee articular cartilage transplantation surgery. The IKDC score is recommended for assessing outcomes after cartilage transplantation surgery.

Keywords

OCA ACI cartilage transplant osteochondral allograft articular cartilage defect

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Angthong

Chumchuen

Khadsongkram

. Total ankle arthroplasty with ceramic prostheses: a systematic review of medium-term outcomes and failure rates. Hard Tissue. 2013;2(2):15.

Bloom

Kaplan

Mojica

, et al. The minimal clinically important difference: a review of clinical significance. Am J Sports Med. 2023;51(2):520-524.

Briggs

Steadman

Hay

Hines

. Lysholm score and Tegner activity level in individuals with normal knees. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(5):898-901.

Calcei

Ray

Sherman

Farr

. Management of large focal chondral and osteochondral defects in the knee. J Knee Surg. 2020;33(12):1187-1200.

Cameron

Thompson

Peck

, et al. Normative values for the KOOS and WOMAC in a young athletic population: history of knee ligament injury is associated with lower scores. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(3):582-589.

Chen

Jones

Togashi

Park

Vangsness

Jr.

Use of platelet-rich plasma for the improvement of pain and function in rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis with bias assessment. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(8):2028-2041.

Collins

Misra

Felson

Crossley

Roos

. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(suppl 11):S208-S228.

Collins

Prinsen

Christensen

, et al. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24(8):1317-1329.

DeClercq

Fiorentino

Lengel

, et al. Systematic review of platelet-rich plasma for rotator cuff repair: are we adhering to the minimum information for studies evaluating biologics in orthopaedics? Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(12):23259671211041971.

10.

Greco

Anderson

Mann

, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in comparison to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in patients with focal articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(5):891-902.

11.

Gulledge

Smith

Ziedas

, et al. Floor and ceiling effects, time to completion, and question burden of PROMIS CAT domains among shoulder and knee patients undergoing nonoperative and operative treatment. JBJS Open Access. 2019;4(4):e0015.1-7.

12.

Hambly

. The use of the Tegner Activity Scale for articular cartilage repair of the knee: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(4):604-614.

13.

Hambly

Griva

. IKDC or KOOS? Which measures symptoms and disabilities most important to postoperative articular cartilage repair patients? Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(9):1695-1704.

14.

Hinckel

Thomas

Vellios

, et al. Algorithm for treatment of focal cartilage defects of the knee: classic and new procedures. Cartilage. 2021;13(1)(suppl):473S-495S.

15.

Kreuz

Steinwachs

Erggelet

, et al. Results after microfracture of full-thickness chondral defects in different compartments in the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006;14(11):1119-1125.

16.

Krych

Saris

DBF

Stuart

Hacken

. Cartilage injury in the knee: assessment and treatment options. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(22):914-922.

17.

Liang

Larson

Cullen

Schwartz

. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985;28(5):542-547.

18.

Magnuson

Platt

Zacharias

, et al. Patient-reported outcome scores following patellar instability surgery—high prevalence does not equal high responsiveness: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(4):1453-1460.

19.

Matthews

Brutico

Abraham

, et al. Differences in clinical and functional outcomes between osteochondral allograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of focal articular cartilage defects. Orthop J Sports Med. 2022; 10(2):23259671211058425.

20.

Ogura

Ackermann

Barbieri Mestriner

Merkely

Gomoll

. Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefit in patient-reported outcome measures after autologous chondrocyte implantation. Cartilage. 2020;11(4):412-422.

21.

Ogura

Ackermann

Mestriner

Merkely

Gomoll

. The minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit in the patient-reported outcome measures of patients undergoing osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. Cartilage. 2021;12(1):42-50.

22.

Owusu-Akyaw

Bido

Warner

Rodeo

Williams

. SF-36 Physical Component Score is predictive of achieving a clinically meaningful improvement after osteochondral allograft transplantation of the femur. Cartilage. 2021;13(1)(suppl):853S-859S.

23.

Peterson

Foley

. Clinician’s guide to understanding effect size, alpha level, power, and sample size. Nutr Clin Pract. 2021;36(3):598-605.

24.

Richter

Schenck

Jr Wascher

Treme

. Knee articular cartilage repair and restoration techniques: a review of the literature. Sports Health. 2016;8(2):153-160.

25.

Roos

Lohmander

. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:64.

26.

Stegmeier

Oak

O’Rourke

, et al. No clinically significant difference between adult and pediatric IKDC subjective knee evaluation scores in adults. Sports Health. 2017;9(5):450-455.

27.

Stone

Jacobs

Luo

, et al. High degree of variability in reporting of clinical and patient-reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(12):3040-3046.

28.

Vasiliadis

Danielson

Ljungberg

, et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation in cartilage lesions of the knee: long-term evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging and delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging technique. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(5):943-949.

29.

Weissenberger

Heinz

Boelch

, et al. Is debridement beneficial for focal cartilage defects of the knee: data from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;140(3):373-382.

30.

Williams

Piva

Irrgang

Crossley

Fitzgerald

. Comparison of reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported clinical outcome measures in knee osteoarthritis rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(8):716-723.

31.

Woolacott

Corbett

Rice

. The use and reporting of WOMAC in the assessment of the benefit of physical therapies for the pain of osteoarthritis of the knee: findings from a systematic review of clinical trials. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51(8):1440-1446.