scholarly journals Osteochondral knee fracture

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balint Botz
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 478 (9) ◽  
pp. 2036-2044
Author(s):  
Veronique Vestergaard ◽  
Alma Becic Pedersen ◽  
Kristoffer Borbjerg Hare ◽  
Henrik Morville Schrøder ◽  
Anders Troelsen

2009 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-510
Author(s):  
Yumiko Kanamaru ◽  
Akihiko Yonekura ◽  
Takashi Miyamoto ◽  
Narihiro Okazaki ◽  
Hiroyuki Shindo

Cartilage ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guilherme C. Gracitelli ◽  
Luis Eduardo Passarelli Tirico ◽  
Julie C. McCauley ◽  
Pamela A. Pulido ◽  
William D. Bugbee

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate functional outcomes and allograft survivorship among patients with knee fracture who underwent fresh osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation as a salvage treatment option. Design Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Setting Department of Orthopaedic Surgery at one hospital. Patients Fresh OCAs were implanted for osteochondral lesions after knee fracture in 24 males and 15 females with an average age of 34 years. Twenty-nine lesions (74%) were tibial plateau fractures, 6 (15%) were femoral condyle fractures, and 4 (10%) were patella fractures. Main Outcome Measurements Clinical evaluation included modified Merle d’Aubigné-Postel (18-point), International Knee Documentation Committee, and Knee Society function scores, and patient satisfaction. Failure of OCA was defined as revision OCA or conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Results Nineteen of 39 knees (49%) had further surgery. Ten knees (26%) were considered OCA failures (3 OCA revisions, 6 TKA, and 1 patellectomy). Survivorship of the OCA was 82.6% at 5 years and 69.6% at 10 years. Among the 29 knees (74%) that had the OCA still in situ, median follow-up was 6.6 years. Pain and function improved from preoperative to latest follow-up; 83% of patients reported satisfaction with OCA results. Conclusion OCA transplantation is a useful salvage treatment option for osteochondral lesions caused by knee fracture. Although the reoperation rate was high, successful outcome was associated with significant clinical improvement.


2019 ◽  
Vol 09 (11) ◽  
pp. 197-202
Author(s):  
Nahir Chalup Torija ◽  
Álvaro Ramiro Ruiz ◽  
Rubén Rodriguez Salas ◽  
Beatriz Fuentes Benito ◽  
Marina Nevado Villafruela ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-368
Author(s):  
Shinsuke Takeda ◽  
Katsuyuki Iwatsuki ◽  
Akihiko Tabuchi ◽  
Sadahiro Kubo ◽  
Satoshi Teranishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingyu LIU ◽  
Mouwang Zhou ◽  
Yanyan Yang ◽  
Tao Li

Abstract Purpose In Western developed countries, patients commonly receive rehabilitation after orthopedic surgery to improve functional dysfunction. In China, however, rehabilitation is widely neglected. An appropriate perioperative rehabilitation model for early orthopedic rehabilitation is urgently needed in China. We evaluated the outcomes of perioperative rehabilitation patterns and promoted the functional recovery of orthopedic patients in China. Methods 668 patients from 9 centers who underwent internal fixation surgery because of knee joint fracture were assigned to 2 groups: 1) control group: received the standard postoperative treatments, or 2) trial group: received perioperative rehabilitation in team-based approach. The visual analog scale (VAS), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) scores were assessed 12 and 24 weeks postoperatively. Results The VAS scores at 12 and 24 weeks postoperative showed that the trial group had significantly less pain than control group (P < 0.001). Compared to the control group, the trial group had significantly better HSS knee scores at 12 weeks (P < 0.05) and significantly better BBS scores at both 12 and 24 weeks postoperative (P < 0.05). Conclusions Compared to common postoperative treatments, patients with systematic team-approach rehabilitation had better functional outcomes and pain relief after knee fracture surgery.


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
N. Daraboš ◽  
S. Medved ◽  
I. Jurak ◽  
J. Kogler ◽  
N. Žura ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document