Elbardesy Hany, Nagle Matthew, Simmons Lydia, Harty James
Acta Orthop Belg. 2021 Mar;87(1):93-102.
Knee osteochondral defects are a common problem among people, especially young and active patients. So effective joint preserving surgeries is essential to prevent or even delay the onset of osteoarthritis for these group of patients. This study aims to critically appraise and evaluate the evidence for the results and effectiveness of femoral condyle resurfacing (HemiCAP/ UniCAP) in treatment of patients with focal femoral condyle cartilage defect. Using the search terms : HemiCAP, UniCAP, Episurf, focal, femoral, condyle, inlay and resur-facing, we reviewed the PubMed and EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) to find any articles published up to March 2020. The short term follow-up of the HemiCAP shows (6.74 %) revision rate. However, 29.13 % loss of follow up let us consider these results with caution especially if the revision rate progressively increased with time to 19.3 % in 5-7 years with no enough evidence for the long term results except the data from the Australian Joint Registry 2018, where the cumulative revision rate was 40.6 % (33.5, 48.4) at ten years. The UniCAP that used for defect more than 4 cm 2 has a high revision rate (53.66 %) which is considered unacceptable revision rate in com-parison to another similar prosthesis such as Uni-Knee Arthroplasty (UKA). The evidence from published studies and our meta- analysis suggests that partial resurfacing of the femoral condyle (HemiCAP) doesn't support its usage as a tool to treat the focal cartilage defect in middle- aged patients. The UniCAP as femoral condyle resurfacing has very high revision rate at 5-7 years (53.66 %) which make us recommend against its usage.
膝关节骨软骨缺损在人群中是一个常见问题,尤其是年轻且活跃的患者。因此,有效的保关节手术对于预防甚至延缓这类患者骨关节炎的发病至关重要。本研究旨在严格评估和评价股骨髁表面置换术(HemiCAP/UniCAP)治疗局限性股骨髁软骨缺损患者的结果及有效性的证据。使用搜索词:HemiCAP、UniCAP、Episurf、局限性、股骨、髁、镶嵌和表面置换,我们检索了PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane系统评价数据库(CDSR),以查找截至2020年3月发表的任何文章。HemiCAP的短期随访显示翻修率为(6.74%)。然而,29.13%的失访率让我们谨慎看待这些结果,特别是如果翻修率随时间逐渐增加,在5至7年时达到19.3%,除了来自澳大利亚关节注册中心2018年的数据外,没有足够的长期结果证据,该数据显示十年时累积翻修率为40.6%(33.5,48.4)。用于面积超过4平方厘米缺损的UniCAP翻修率很高(53.66%),与另一种类似假体如单髁膝关节置换术(UKA)相比,这被认为是不可接受的翻修率。已发表研究的证据以及我们的荟萃分析表明,股骨髁部分表面置换术(HemiCAP)不支持将其用作治疗中年患者局限性软骨缺损的工具。作为股骨髁表面置换术的UniCAP在5至7年时翻修率非常高(53.66%),这使我们不建议使用它。