Treatment of Grade III Femoral Chondral Lesions: Mechanical Chondroplasty Versus Monopolar Radiofrequency Probe

Purpose: Articular cartilage defects are commonly found on the femoral condyle, and their treatment with thermal energy is thought to provide a smoother surface, sealing the damaged articular cartilage and possibly decreasing the progression of these lesions. Reports of femoral avascular necrosis (A...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Arthroscopy 2006-12, Vol.22 (12), p.1312-1317
Hauptverfasser: Barber, F. Alan, Iwasko, Nicholas G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1317
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1312
container_title Arthroscopy
container_volume 22
creator Barber, F. Alan
Iwasko, Nicholas G.
description Purpose: Articular cartilage defects are commonly found on the femoral condyle, and their treatment with thermal energy is thought to provide a smoother surface, sealing the damaged articular cartilage and possibly decreasing the progression of these lesions. Reports of femoral avascular necrosis (AVN) developing after bipolar thermal chondroplasty are worrisome. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects on subchondral bone and the early clinical effectiveness of mechanical shaving versus mechanical shaving plus monopolar radiofrequency (MRF) on grade III femoral chondromalacia. Type of Study: Randomized, prospective, controlled trial. Methods: In this trial 60 subjects were treated by either mechanical shaving alone (n = 30) or mechanical shaving plus MRF (n = 30). Preoperative and 12-month postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluations and Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati, International Knee Documentation Committee, and visual analog scale assessments at 12 and 24 months were obtained. Results: Of the subjects, 56 were available for the final analysis (28 treated by shaver and 28 treated by shaver plus MRF). Baseline demographics were similar between treatment groups. Postoperative MRI findings were similar between groups, including no incidents of AVN. At a mean of 19 months postoperatively, Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati, International Knee Documentation Committee, and visual analog scale assessments improved significantly from pretreatment levels in both groups. No difference in mean improvement was observed between groups. Conclusions: The primary endpoint was to look for AVN. No subchondral bone effects attributable to either mechanical shaving or radiofrequency energy were noted. The secondary endpoint was a clinical evaluation. Both groups showed significant improvements in pain and function outcomes with no discernible differences between groups. The use of monopolar radiofrequency as an adjuvant to mechanical chondroplasty with a shaver for the treatment of grade III chondral lesions did not affect MRI findings or pain and function outcomes when compared with mechanical chondroplasty by use of a shaver only. Level of Evidence: Level II, randomized controlled trial with confidence intervals not reported.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.06.008
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68232429</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0749806306007419</els_id><sourcerecordid>68232429</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-8e30cf1552cb424b2e5b15f6b816b67622897a0812d0470700258d02f17107fe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kFGLEzEQx4MoXu_0G4jkRd-2TpLdJPVBOIp3FnoocvoastkJTdnd1GQr9NubpeXuTRhIIL__zORHyDsGSwZMftovbZp2KS45gFzOBfoFWbCGy0pwwV6SBah6VWmQ4opc57wHACG0eE2umGKNUgIWJD4mtNOA40Sjp_fJdkg3mw29wyEm29P1Lo7dfNliDnHMn-kDup0dg3t6jIfe5ulEf2PKx0wf4hgPsbeJ_rRdiD7hnyOO7kR_pNjiG_LK2z7j28t5Q37dfX1cf6u23-8369tt5cQKpkqjAOdZ03DX1rxuOTYta7xsNZOtVJJzvVIWNOMd1AoUAG90B9yXn4HyKG7Ix3PfQ4plfp7MELLDvrcjxmM2UnPBa74qYH0GXYo5J_TmkMJg08kwMLNoszdn0WYWbeYCXWLvL_2P7YDdc-hitgAfLoDNxZVPdnQhP3O6ZlKyunBfzhwWG38DJpNdKL6wCwndZLoY_r_JP9Z1nYY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68232429</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treatment of Grade III Femoral Chondral Lesions: Mechanical Chondroplasty Versus Monopolar Radiofrequency Probe</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Barber, F. Alan ; Iwasko, Nicholas G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Barber, F. Alan ; Iwasko, Nicholas G.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: Articular cartilage defects are commonly found on the femoral condyle, and their treatment with thermal energy is thought to provide a smoother surface, sealing the damaged articular cartilage and possibly decreasing the progression of these lesions. Reports of femoral avascular necrosis (AVN) developing after bipolar thermal chondroplasty are worrisome. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects on subchondral bone and the early clinical effectiveness of mechanical shaving versus mechanical shaving plus monopolar radiofrequency (MRF) on grade III femoral chondromalacia. Type of Study: Randomized, prospective, controlled trial. Methods: In this trial 60 subjects were treated by either mechanical shaving alone (n = 30) or mechanical shaving plus MRF (n = 30). Preoperative and 12-month postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluations and Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati, International Knee Documentation Committee, and visual analog scale assessments at 12 and 24 months were obtained. Results: Of the subjects, 56 were available for the final analysis (28 treated by shaver and 28 treated by shaver plus MRF). Baseline demographics were similar between treatment groups. Postoperative MRI findings were similar between groups, including no incidents of AVN. At a mean of 19 months postoperatively, Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati, International Knee Documentation Committee, and visual analog scale assessments improved significantly from pretreatment levels in both groups. No difference in mean improvement was observed between groups. Conclusions: The primary endpoint was to look for AVN. No subchondral bone effects attributable to either mechanical shaving or radiofrequency energy were noted. The secondary endpoint was a clinical evaluation. Both groups showed significant improvements in pain and function outcomes with no discernible differences between groups. The use of monopolar radiofrequency as an adjuvant to mechanical chondroplasty with a shaver for the treatment of grade III chondral lesions did not affect MRI findings or pain and function outcomes when compared with mechanical chondroplasty by use of a shaver only. Level of Evidence: Level II, randomized controlled trial with confidence intervals not reported.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-8063</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-3231</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.06.008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17157730</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ARTHE3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Arthroscopy ; Arthroscopy - methods ; Articular cartilage ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cartilage, Articular - abnormalities ; Cartilage, Articular - surgery ; Catheter Ablation ; Diseases of the osteoarticular system ; Endoscopy ; Female ; Femur - abnormalities ; Femur - surgery ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Knee ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Monopolar ; Necrosis ; Orthopedic surgery ; Patella - surgery ; Patient Selection ; Radiofrequency ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Arthroscopy, 2006-12, Vol.22 (12), p.1312-1317</ispartof><rights>2006 Arthroscopy Association of North America</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-8e30cf1552cb424b2e5b15f6b816b67622897a0812d0470700258d02f17107fe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-8e30cf1552cb424b2e5b15f6b816b67622897a0812d0470700258d02f17107fe3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2006.06.008$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=18416614$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17157730$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Barber, F. Alan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iwasko, Nicholas G.</creatorcontrib><title>Treatment of Grade III Femoral Chondral Lesions: Mechanical Chondroplasty Versus Monopolar Radiofrequency Probe</title><title>Arthroscopy</title><addtitle>Arthroscopy</addtitle><description>Purpose: Articular cartilage defects are commonly found on the femoral condyle, and their treatment with thermal energy is thought to provide a smoother surface, sealing the damaged articular cartilage and possibly decreasing the progression of these lesions. Reports of femoral avascular necrosis (AVN) developing after bipolar thermal chondroplasty are worrisome. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects on subchondral bone and the early clinical effectiveness of mechanical shaving versus mechanical shaving plus monopolar radiofrequency (MRF) on grade III femoral chondromalacia. Type of Study: Randomized, prospective, controlled trial. Methods: In this trial 60 subjects were treated by either mechanical shaving alone (n = 30) or mechanical shaving plus MRF (n = 30). Preoperative and 12-month postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluations and Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati, International Knee Documentation Committee, and visual analog scale assessments at 12 and 24 months were obtained. Results: Of the subjects, 56 were available for the final analysis (28 treated by shaver and 28 treated by shaver plus MRF). Baseline demographics were similar between treatment groups. Postoperative MRI findings were similar between groups, including no incidents of AVN. At a mean of 19 months postoperatively, Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati, International Knee Documentation Committee, and visual analog scale assessments improved significantly from pretreatment levels in both groups. No difference in mean improvement was observed between groups. Conclusions: The primary endpoint was to look for AVN. No subchondral bone effects attributable to either mechanical shaving or radiofrequency energy were noted. The secondary endpoint was a clinical evaluation. Both groups showed significant improvements in pain and function outcomes with no discernible differences between groups. The use of monopolar radiofrequency as an adjuvant to mechanical chondroplasty with a shaver for the treatment of grade III chondral lesions did not affect MRI findings or pain and function outcomes when compared with mechanical chondroplasty by use of a shaver only. Level of Evidence: Level II, randomized controlled trial with confidence intervals not reported.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Arthroscopy</subject><subject>Arthroscopy - methods</subject><subject>Articular cartilage</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cartilage, Articular - abnormalities</subject><subject>Cartilage, Articular - surgery</subject><subject>Catheter Ablation</subject><subject>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Femur - abnormalities</subject><subject>Femur - surgery</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Monopolar</subject><subject>Necrosis</subject><subject>Orthopedic surgery</subject><subject>Patella - surgery</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Radiofrequency</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0749-8063</issn><issn>1526-3231</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kFGLEzEQx4MoXu_0G4jkRd-2TpLdJPVBOIp3FnoocvoastkJTdnd1GQr9NubpeXuTRhIIL__zORHyDsGSwZMftovbZp2KS45gFzOBfoFWbCGy0pwwV6SBah6VWmQ4opc57wHACG0eE2umGKNUgIWJD4mtNOA40Sjp_fJdkg3mw29wyEm29P1Lo7dfNliDnHMn-kDup0dg3t6jIfe5ulEf2PKx0wf4hgPsbeJ_rRdiD7hnyOO7kR_pNjiG_LK2z7j28t5Q37dfX1cf6u23-8369tt5cQKpkqjAOdZ03DX1rxuOTYta7xsNZOtVJJzvVIWNOMd1AoUAG90B9yXn4HyKG7Ix3PfQ4plfp7MELLDvrcjxmM2UnPBa74qYH0GXYo5J_TmkMJg08kwMLNoszdn0WYWbeYCXWLvL_2P7YDdc-hitgAfLoDNxZVPdnQhP3O6ZlKyunBfzhwWG38DJpNdKL6wCwndZLoY_r_JP9Z1nYY</recordid><startdate>20061201</startdate><enddate>20061201</enddate><creator>Barber, F. Alan</creator><creator>Iwasko, Nicholas G.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20061201</creationdate><title>Treatment of Grade III Femoral Chondral Lesions: Mechanical Chondroplasty Versus Monopolar Radiofrequency Probe</title><author>Barber, F. Alan ; Iwasko, Nicholas G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-8e30cf1552cb424b2e5b15f6b816b67622897a0812d0470700258d02f17107fe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Arthroscopy</topic><topic>Arthroscopy - methods</topic><topic>Articular cartilage</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cartilage, Articular - abnormalities</topic><topic>Cartilage, Articular - surgery</topic><topic>Catheter Ablation</topic><topic>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Femur - abnormalities</topic><topic>Femur - surgery</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Monopolar</topic><topic>Necrosis</topic><topic>Orthopedic surgery</topic><topic>Patella - surgery</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Radiofrequency</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Barber, F. Alan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iwasko, Nicholas G.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Arthroscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Barber, F. Alan</au><au>Iwasko, Nicholas G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treatment of Grade III Femoral Chondral Lesions: Mechanical Chondroplasty Versus Monopolar Radiofrequency Probe</atitle><jtitle>Arthroscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Arthroscopy</addtitle><date>2006-12-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1312</spage><epage>1317</epage><pages>1312-1317</pages><issn>0749-8063</issn><eissn>1526-3231</eissn><coden>ARTHE3</coden><abstract>Purpose: Articular cartilage defects are commonly found on the femoral condyle, and their treatment with thermal energy is thought to provide a smoother surface, sealing the damaged articular cartilage and possibly decreasing the progression of these lesions. Reports of femoral avascular necrosis (AVN) developing after bipolar thermal chondroplasty are worrisome. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects on subchondral bone and the early clinical effectiveness of mechanical shaving versus mechanical shaving plus monopolar radiofrequency (MRF) on grade III femoral chondromalacia. Type of Study: Randomized, prospective, controlled trial. Methods: In this trial 60 subjects were treated by either mechanical shaving alone (n = 30) or mechanical shaving plus MRF (n = 30). Preoperative and 12-month postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluations and Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati, International Knee Documentation Committee, and visual analog scale assessments at 12 and 24 months were obtained. Results: Of the subjects, 56 were available for the final analysis (28 treated by shaver and 28 treated by shaver plus MRF). Baseline demographics were similar between treatment groups. Postoperative MRI findings were similar between groups, including no incidents of AVN. At a mean of 19 months postoperatively, Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati, International Knee Documentation Committee, and visual analog scale assessments improved significantly from pretreatment levels in both groups. No difference in mean improvement was observed between groups. Conclusions: The primary endpoint was to look for AVN. No subchondral bone effects attributable to either mechanical shaving or radiofrequency energy were noted. The secondary endpoint was a clinical evaluation. Both groups showed significant improvements in pain and function outcomes with no discernible differences between groups. The use of monopolar radiofrequency as an adjuvant to mechanical chondroplasty with a shaver for the treatment of grade III chondral lesions did not affect MRI findings or pain and function outcomes when compared with mechanical chondroplasty by use of a shaver only. Level of Evidence: Level II, randomized controlled trial with confidence intervals not reported.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia, PA</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>17157730</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.arthro.2006.06.008</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0749-8063
ispartof Arthroscopy, 2006-12, Vol.22 (12), p.1312-1317
issn 0749-8063
1526-3231
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68232429
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Arthroscopy
Arthroscopy - methods
Articular cartilage
Biological and medical sciences
Cartilage, Articular - abnormalities
Cartilage, Articular - surgery
Catheter Ablation
Diseases of the osteoarticular system
Endoscopy
Female
Femur - abnormalities
Femur - surgery
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Knee
Magnetic resonance imaging
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Monopolar
Necrosis
Orthopedic surgery
Patella - surgery
Patient Selection
Radiofrequency
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
title Treatment of Grade III Femoral Chondral Lesions: Mechanical Chondroplasty Versus Monopolar Radiofrequency Probe
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T09%3A36%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treatment%20of%20Grade%20III%20Femoral%20Chondral%20Lesions:%20Mechanical%20Chondroplasty%20Versus%20Monopolar%20Radiofrequency%20Probe&rft.jtitle=Arthroscopy&rft.au=Barber,%20F.%20Alan&rft.date=2006-12-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1312&rft.epage=1317&rft.pages=1312-1317&rft.issn=0749-8063&rft.eissn=1526-3231&rft.coden=ARTHE3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arthro.2006.06.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68232429%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68232429&rft_id=info:pmid/17157730&rft_els_id=S0749806306007419&rfr_iscdi=true