2018•Orthopaedic ProceedingsRequires access

P99 WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN CARTILAGE REPAIR-MACROSCOPIC GRADING OR HISTOLOGY?

S Krishnan, John Andrew Skinner, J Jaggiello, R.W.J. Carrington, Adrienne Margaret Flanagan, Timothy W.R. Briggs, G. Bentley

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Aims To investigate (1) The relationship between macroscopic grading and durability of cartilage repair following collagen-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI-C) in the knee; (2) The influence of histology on durability of cartilage repair; (3) The relationship between macroscopic appearance and histology of repair tissue. Patients and methods The modified Cincinnati scores (MCRS) of eighty-six patients were evaluated prospectively at one year and at the latest follow-up (mean follow-up = 4.7yrs. Range = 4 to 7 years). Needle biopsies of their cartilage repair site were stained with Haematoxylin and Eosin and some with Safranin O and the neo-cartilage was graded as hyaline-like (n=32, 37.2%), mixed fibro-hyaline (n=19, 22%) and fibro-cartilagenous tissue (n=35, 40.7%). Macroscopic grading of the repair tissue using the international cartilage repair society grading system (ICRS) was available for fifty-six patients in the study cohort. Statistical analyses were performed to investigate the significance of histology and ICRS grading on MCRS at 1 year and at the latest follow-up. Results The MCRS of all three histology groups were comparable at one year evaluation (p=0.34). However, their clinical scores at the latest follow-up (mean = 4.7years) showed a significantly superior result for those with hyaline-like repair tissue when compared to those with mixed fibro-hyaline and fibro-cartilagenous repair (p=0.05). There was no correlation between the ICRS macroscopic grading and MCRS (clinical) grading either at one year (p=0.12) or at the latest follow-up (p=0.16). Also, the ICRS grading of the repair tissue did not correlate with its histological type (p=0.12). Conclusion We conclude that any form of cartilage repair gave a good clinical outcome at one year. At four years and beyond, hyaline-like repair tissue was associated with a more favourable clinical outcome. Macroscopic evaluation using the ICRS grading system does not reflect the clinical outcome or its durability or the histological type of repair tissue.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Aims To investigate (1) The relationship between macroscopic grading and durability of cartilage repair following collagen-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI-C) in the knee; (2) The influence of histology on durability of cartilage repair; (3) The relationship between macroscopic appearance and histology of repair tissue. Patients and methods The modified Cincinnati scores (MCRS) of eighty-six patients were evaluated prospectively at one year and at the latest follow-up (mean follow-up = 4.7yrs. Range = 4 to 7 years). Needle biopsies of their cartilage repair site were stained with Haematoxylin and Eosin and some with Safranin O and the neo-cartilage was graded as hyaline-like (n=32, 37.2%), mixed fibro-hyaline (n=19, 22%) and fibro-cartilagenous tissue (n=35, 40.7%). Macroscopic grading of the repair tissue using the international cartilage repair society grading system (ICRS) was available for fifty-six patients in the study cohort. Statistical analyses were performed to investigate the significance of histology and ICRS grading on MCRS at 1 year and at the latest follow-up. Results The MCRS of all three histology groups were comparable at one year evaluation (p=0.34). However, their clinical scores at the latest follow-up (mean = 4.7years) showed a significantly superior result for those with hyaline-like repair tissue when compared to those with mixed fibro-hyaline and fibro-cartilagenous repair (p=0.05). There was no correlation between the ICRS macroscopic grading and MCRS (clinical) grading either at one year (p=0.12) or at the latest follow-up (p=0.16). Also, the ICRS grading of the repair tissue did not correlate with its histological type (p=0.12). Conclusion We conclude that any form of cartilage repair gave a good clinical outcome at one year. At four years and beyond, hyaline-like repair tissue was associated with a more favourable clinical outcome. Macroscopic evaluation using the ICRS grading system does not reflect the clinical outcome or its durability or the histological type of repair tissue.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Aims To investigate (1) The relationship between macroscopic grading and durability of cartilage repair following collagen-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI-C) in the knee; (2) The influence of histology on durability of cartilage repair; (3) The relationship between macroscopic appearance and histology of repair tissue. Patients and methods The modified Cincinnati scores (MCRS) of eighty-six patients were evaluated prospectively at one year and at the latest follow-up (mean follow-up = 4.7yrs. Range = 4 to 7 years). Needle biopsies of their cartilage repair site were stained with Haematoxylin and Eosin and some with Safranin O and the neo-cartilage was graded as hyaline-like (n=32, 37.2%), mixed fibro-hyaline (n=19, 22%) and fibro-cartilagenous tissue (n=35, 40.7%). Macroscopic grading of the repair tissue using the international cartilage repair society grading system (ICRS) was available for fifty-six patients in the study cohort. Statistical analyses were performed to investigate the significance of histology and ICRS grading on MCRS at 1 year and at the latest follow-up. Results The MCRS of all three histology groups were comparable at one year evaluation (p=0.34). However, their clinical scores at the latest follow-up (mean = 4.7years) showed a significantly superior result for those with hyaline-like repair tissue when compared to those with mixed fibro-hyaline and fibro-cartilagenous repair (p=0.05). There was no correlation between the ICRS macroscopic grading and MCRS (clinical) grading either at one year (p=0.12) or at the latest follow-up (p=0.16). Also, the ICRS grading of the repair tissue did not correlate with its histological type (p=0.12). Conclusion We conclude that any form of cartilage repair gave a good clinical outcome at one year. At four years and beyond, hyaline-like repair tissue was associated with a more favourable clinical outcome. Macroscopic evaluation using the ICRS grading system does not reflect the clinical outcome or its durability or the histological type of repair tissue.

Key concepts: Histology, Hyaline cartilage, Grading (engineering), Cartilage, Medicine, Hyaline, Grading scale, Surgery

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
P99 WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN CARTILAGE REPAIR-MACROSCOPIC GRADING OR HISTOLOGY? — Research Paper | ScholarLens