The subchondral bone in articular cartilage repair: current problems in the surgical management

As the understanding of interactions between articular cartilage and subchondral bone continues to evolve, increased attention is being directed at treatment options for the entire osteochondral unit, rather than focusing on the articular surface only. It is becoming apparent that without support from an intact subchondral bed, any treatment of the surface chondral lesion is likely to fail. This article reviews issues affecting the entire osteochondral unit, such as subchondral changes after marrow-stimulation techniques and meniscectomy or large osteochondral defects created by prosthetic resurfacing techniques. Also discussed are surgical techniques designed to address these issues, including the use of osteochondral allografts, autologous bone grafting, next generation cell-based implants, as well as strategies after failed subchondral repair and problems specific to the ankle joint. Lastly, since this area remains in constant evolution, the requirements for prospective studies needed to evaluate these emerging technologies will be reviewed

Bilayer Implants

OBJECTIVE: To compare the regenerative capacity of 2 distinct bilayer implants for the restoration of osteochondral defects in a preliminary sheep model. METHODS: Critical sized osteochondral defects were treated with a novel biomimetic poly-ε-caprolactone (PCL) implant (Treatment No. 2; n = 6) or a combination of Chondro-Gide and Orthoss (Treatment No. 1; n = 6). At 19 months postoperation, repair tissue (n = 5 each) was analyzed for histology and biochemistry. Electromechanical mappings (Arthro-BST) were performed ex vivo. RESULTS: Histological scores, electromechanical quantitative parameter values, dsDNA and sGAG contents measured at the repair sites were statistically lower than those obtained from the contralateral surfaces. Electromechanical mappings and higher dsDNA and sGAG/weight levels indicated better regeneration for Treatment No. 1. However, these differences were not significant. For both treatments, Arthro-BST revealed early signs of degeneration of the cartilage surrounding the repair site. The International Cartilage Repair Society II histological scores of the repair tissue were significantly higher for Treatment No. 1 (10.3 ± 0.38 SE) compared to Treatment No. 2 (8.7 ± 0.45 SE). The parameters cell morphology and vascularization scored highest whereas tidemark formation scored the lowest. CONCLUSION: There was cell infiltration and regeneration of bone and cartilage. However, repair was incomplete and fibrocartilaginous. There were no significant differences in the quality of regeneration between the treatments except in some histological scoring categories. The results from Arthro-BST measurements were comparable to traditional invasive/destructive methods of measuring quality of cartilage repair