Articular cartilage injuries can produce significant musculoskeletal morbidity for both young and active aging patient populations. The complex and highly specialized composition of normal hyaline cartilage makes treatment of focal chondral injuries a formidable challenge for the basic scientist, surgeon, and physical therapist.

The current array of surgical treatment options offers palliative, reparative, and restorative treatment strategies. Palliative options include simple arthroscopic debridement. Reparative strategies utilize marrow stimulation techniques to induce formation of fibrocartilage within the chondral defect. Restorative tactics attempt to replace damaged cartilage with hyaline or hyaline-like tissue using osteochondral or chondrocyte transplantation.

Furthermore, while treatment success is obviously dependent on good surgical selection and technique, the importance of sound, compliant postoperative rehabilitation cannot be understated. The purpose of this article is to review the basic science of articular cartilage, current treatment options available, and outline the clinical decision-making involved when using these procedures by presenting the algorithm used at our institution for treating focal cartilage lesions.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36(10):717-727. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2175

Key Words: arthritis, basic science, cartilage, knee, treatment options

Successful management of chondral and osteochondral defects of the weight-bearing joint surfaces has always been a challenge for orthopedic surgeons and rehabilitation specialists. Autologous osteochondral mosaic transplantation technique is one of the recently evolved methods to create hyaline or hyaline-like repair tissue in the pathologic area. Clinical evaluation, various imaging techniques, arthroscopy (second look), histological examination of biopsy samples, and measurements of cartilage mechanical properties are used to evaluate the merits of outcomes and quality of the transplanted cartilage.

According to our investigations, good to excellent results were achieved in more than 92% of patients treated with femoral condylar implantations, 87% of those treated with tibial resurfacing, 79% of those treated with patellar and/or trochlear mosaicplasties, and 94% of those treated with talar procedures. Long-term donor-site discrepancies, assessed with use of the Bandi Score, showed that patients had 3% morbidity after mosaicplasty. Sixty-nine of 89 patients who were followed up with a second-look arthroscopy showed congruent gliding surfaces, histological evidence of the survival of the transplanted hyaline cartilage, and fibrocartilage filling of the donor sites.

In a series of 831 consecutive patients, very few complications have been observed. These included 4 deep infections and 36 painful postoperative intra-articular bleedings. On the basis of these results and those of other similar studies, autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty appears to be a promising alternative for the treatment of small- and medium-sized focal chondral and osteochondral defects of the weight bearing surfaces of the knee and other weight-bearing synovial joints.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36(10):739-750. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2182

Key Words: autologous osteochondral graft, cartilage, full-thickness defect, knee, osteochondral transfer

Two rapidly progressing areas of research will likely contribute to cartilage repair procedures in the foreseeable future: gene therapy and synthetic scaffolds. Gene therapy refers to the transfer of new genetic information to cells that contribute to the cartilage repair process. This approach allows for manipulation of cartilage repair at the cellular and molecular level.

Scaffolds are the core technology for the next generation of autologous cartilage implantation procedures in which synthetic matrices are used in conjunction with chondrocytes. This approach can be improved further using bioreactor technologies to enhance the production of extracellular matrix proteins by chondrocytes seeded onto a scaffold. The resulting ‘‘neo-cartilage implant’’ matures within the bioreactor, and can then be used to fill cartilage defects.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36(10):765-773. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2284

Key Words: chondral defect, chondrocytes, knee, tissue engineering

The purpose of this paper is to provide current knowledge regarding the indications, operative techniques, rehabilitation programs, and clinical outcomes of meniscus repair and transplantation procedures. Meniscus tears that occur in the periphery may be repaired using a variety of operative procedures with high success rates. Complex multiplanar tears that extend into the central one-third avascular zone can also be successfully repaired using a meticulous vertically divergent suture technique.

The outcome of these repairs justifies preservation of meniscal tissue, especially in younger athletic individuals. Meniscal transplantation is a valid treatment option for patients who have undergone meniscectomy and have related tibiofemoral joint pain, or in whom articular cartilage deterioration in the meniscectomized compartment is present.

Rehabilitation after these operations includes knee motion and quadriceps-strengthening exercises initiated the first day postoperatively. The initial goal is to prevent excessive weight bearing and joint compressive forces that could disrupt the healing meniscus repair or transplant. The protocol contains modifications according to the type of meniscal tear, if a concomitant procedure is done (such as a ligament reconstruction) or if noteworthy articular cartilage deterioration is present. Patients who have repairs of peripheral meniscus tears are generally progressed more rapidly than those who have repairs of tears extending in the central one-third region or those who undergo meniscal transplantation. The safety and effectiveness of the rehabilitation program has been demonstrated in several clinical studies. We recommend preservation of meniscal tissue, regardless of age, in active patients whenever possible.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36(10):795-814. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2177

Key Words: knee rehabilitation, meniscus repair, meniscus transplant