ISAKOS Congress 2021

2021 ISAKOS Biennial Congress Paper

 

High Mid-Term Survival Of Condyle Resurfacing Implants In The Knee – A Nation-Wide Cohort Study On 379 Observations From The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry

Bjørn Borsøe Christensen, MD, PhD, Horsens DENMARK
Anders El-Galaly, MD, PhD, Aarhus DENMARK
Jens Ole Laursen, Consultant, Soenderborg DENMARK
Martin Lind, MD, PhD, Prof., Aarhus N DENMARK

Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, DENMARK

FDA Status Not Applicable

Summary

80% Survival 10 years after treatment with Condyle Resurfacing Implants in the Knee

Abstract

Purpose

Focal cartilage injuries are debilitating and difficult to treat. Biological cartilage repair procedures are suited for patients younger than 40 years, and knee arthroplasties are generally reserved for patients older than 60. Condyle resurfacing implants are well suited for patients in this treatment gap. Our objective was to investigate the midterm survival of condyle resurfacing implants from a nationwide cohort registered in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, 379 registrations of condyle resurfacing implants were followed longitudinally in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry from 1997 to 2020. The study’s primary endpoint was revision surgery. The survival of the condyle resurfacing implants was primarily analyzed by Kaplan Meier method.

Results

379 condylar implants were retrieved from the DKR. The mean age and weight of patients receiving condyle resurfacing implants were 50 years (SD: 11) and 84 kg (SD: 17). The indications for condyle resurfacing implants were: Secondary osteoarthritis (42%), primary osteoarthritis (32%) and osteochondral lesions (20%). Within the follow-up period, 70 (19%) of the implants were revised to arthroplasties. The 1-, 5- and 10-year revision free survival estimation was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.88) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75-0.84). The median time to revision was 2 years.

Conclusion

The 10-year revision free survival rate of 80% is high compared with the available biological cartilage repair techniques. Improved patient selection could improve the implant survival rate further and can help fill the treatment gap of focal cartilage injuries in patients aged 40-60.