Focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis in articular cartilage defects: short-term results of 118 patients and 2 different implants

Çepni Ş., Veizi E., Tahta M., Uluyardımcı E., Abughalwa M. J. T., Işık Ç.

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, vol.140, no.2, pp.209-218, 2020 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 140 Issue: 2
  • Publication Date: 2020
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00402-019-03305-5
  • Journal Name: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SportDiscus
  • Page Numbers: pp.209-218
  • Keywords: Cartilage, Focal osteochondral defects, Inlay-resurfacing prosthesis, Osteoarthritis
  • Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Affiliated: No


Background: The goal of this study was to share our experience with two different inlay metallic implants in the treatment of knee cartilage defects and to analyze their effects on functional scores. Methods: This retrospective study included 118 patients operated on for focal full-thickness knee cartilage lesions, who were treated with a focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis. A cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr) resurfacing implant was applied to 73 patients with a knee chondral lesion, and a biosynthetic implant was applied to 45. All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the KOOS, VAS, and Tegner activity scores. Results: The group with the Co–Cr-resurfacing implant showed a significantly greater improvement (p < 0.001) in the Tegner and VAS scores at the 2-year follow-up examination. The KOOS scores were similar in both groups. Median patient age was similar in both groups. All patients had a follow-up of at least 2 years. The preoperative and postoperative scores were compared and significant improvements (p < 0.001) were observed. The biosynthetic implant had a higher revision rate. In the univariate analysis, age and type of implant were significantly associated with revision surgery. In the multivariate Cox-regression analysis model, the type of implant was significantly associated with revision surgery. Conclusion: All the patients operated with the above-mentioned implants showed significant improvements in pain and activity scores. Despite the overall good clinical results, 17% of patients with a biosynthetic implant and > 6% of patients with Co–Cr-resurfacing implant required revision surgery. Age and implant type were the main risk factors associated with revision.