Beliefs regarding knee pain in Indian adults: A knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) survey

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 5 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2020 | page: 47-54 | Keyur B. Desai, Shruti A. Mondkar

Author: Keyur B. Desai [1], Shruti A. Mondkar [2]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, King Edward VII Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India.
[2] Department of Pediatrics, King Edward VII Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Keyur B. Desai,
401, Dadarkar arcade, N.L parelkar marg, opp trimurti building, Parel village. Parel, Mumbai. Maharashtra, India.


Background: Belief along with habits and personality acts as important force guiding human behaviour. Health education can modify irrational beliefs and help people adopt healthy behaviour. The aim of this study is to know the existing beliefs among individuals regarding knee pain, its aetiology, and their most effective treatment modality. The study also explores the sources of healthcare information across different age groups that can be utilized for education and creating public awareness. This study also explores the different reasons why individuals do not prefer to attend a health care facility for their knee pain.
Methods: A questionnaire based cross sectional study was designed to assess individuals beliefs and modes of treatment of knee pain, the accessibility to healthcare and the factors responsible for non attendance of healthcare facility. The likely source of health information and use of internet and smart-phones for acquiring health related information was enquired.
Results: ‘Ageing’, ‘Obesity’, ‘Overactivity’, ‘Sports and recreation’, ‘Hereditary’, were among the most commonly believed causes of knee pain. Some irrational beliefs like association with food items, fate etc were also known. Internet and smart phones remain the most accessible and used source of health information among the age group of <20 years and 20-40 years. Health professionals were more trusted for information in the age group of 40-60 and above 60 years.
Conclusions: Regulated health information through widely available medium like internet and smartphones can effectively tweak the false beliefs in the community and help to develop healthy behaviour.
Keywords: Beliefs, Traditions, Education, Aarogya Setu, Physiotherapy, Health information, Internet and health care, Smart phones and health care, Osteoarthritis, Knee pain, Indian beliefs.


1. Sanders C, Donovan J, Dieppe P. The significance and consequences of having painful and disabled joints in older age: Co-existing accounts of normal and disrupted biographies. Sociol Heal Illn. 2002;24(2):227–53.
2. Naderifar M, Goli H, Ghaljaie F. Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of Sampling in Qualitative Research. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2017 Sep 30;14(3).
3. Hunt K. Henderson, Hamish Scott [Internet]. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 2011 [cited 2020 Apr 22]. Available from:
4. Rosenstock IM, Ph D. Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Monogr. 1960;2(4):328–35.
5. Janz NK and Becker MH . The Health Belief Model. A decade later. 1984; 11 (1): 1-47. Health Educ Q. 1984;11(1):1–47.
6. Morden A, Jinks C, Ong BN. Understanding help seeking for chronic joint pain: Implications for providing supported self-management. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(7):957–68.
7. Hall M, Migay AM, Persad T, Smith J, Yoshida K, Kennedy D, et al. Individuals’ experience of living with osteoarthritis of the knee and perceptions of total knee arthroplasty. Physiother Theory Pract. 2008 May;24(3):167–81.
8. Tuckett D. Becoming a patient. In: Tuckett D, ed. An introduction to medical sociology. London: Tavistock, 1976:159–89.
9. Mechanic D. Health and illness behaviour and patient–practitioner relationships. Soc Sci Med 1992;34:1345–50.
10. Zola IK. Pathways to the doctor: from person to patient. Soc Sci Med 1973;7:677–89.
11. Shane Anderson A, Loeser RF. Why is osteoarthritis an age-related disease? Vol. 24, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Rheumatology. NIH Public Access; 2010. p. 15–26.
12. Saxon L, Finch C, Bass S. Sports participation, sports injuries and osteoarthritis implications for prevention. Vol. 28, Sports Medicine. Adis International Ltd; 1999. p. 123–35.
13. Urquhart DM, Tobing JFL, Hanna FS, Berry P, Wluka AE, Ding C, et al. What is the effect of physical activity on the knee joint? a systematic review. Vol. 43, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2011. p. 432–42.
14. Fransen M, McConnell S, Harmer AR, Van Der Esch M, Simic M, Bennell KL. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee: A Cochrane systematic review. Vol. 49, British Journal of Sports Medicine. BMJ Publishing Group; 2015. p. 1554–7.
15. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Naimark A, Walker AM, Meenan RF. Obesity and knee osteoarthritis. The Framingham Study. Ann Intern Med. 1988 Jul 1;109(1):18–24.
16. Messier SP, Gutekunst DJ, Davis C, DeVita P. Weight loss reduces knee-joint loads in overweight and obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum [Internet]. 2005 Jul [cited 2020 Apr 30];52(7):2026–32. Available from:
17. Digital India: Technology to transform a connected nation | McKinsey [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 30]. Available from:
18. Tonsaker T, Bartlett G, Trpkov C. Health information on the Internet: gold mine or minefield? Can Fam Physician [Internet]. 2014 May [cited 2020 Apr 30];60(5):407–8. Available from:
19. Aarogya Setu Mobile App | [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 30]. Available from:
20. 20. Govt launches “Aarogya Setu”, a coronavirus tracker app: All you need to know [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 30]. Available from: html
21. Aarogya Setu App Crossed 5 Million Installs in 3 Days, Schools Help Spread Awareness | Technology News [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 30]. Available from:
22. Khori V, Changizi S, Biuckians E, Keshtkar A, Alizadeh AM, Mohaghgheghi AM, et al. Relation entre la durée des consultations et la prescription rationnelle de médicaments dans la ville de gorgan (république islamique d’Iran). East Mediterr Heal J. 2012;18(5):480–6.
23. Ahmad BA, Khairatul K, Farnaza A. An assessment of patient waiting and consultation time in a primary healthcare clinic. Malaysian Fam Physician. 2017;12(1):14–21.
24. Alarcon-Ruiz CA, Heredia P, Taype-Rondan A. Association of waiting and consultation time with patient satisfaction: Secondary-data analysis of a national survey in Peruvian ambulatory care facilities. BMC Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2019 Jul 1 [cited 2020 Apr 30];19(1):439. Available from:

How to Cite this article: Desai KB, Mondkar SA | Beliefs regarding knee pain in Indian adults: A knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) survey | Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | January-June 2020; 5(1):47- 54.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)


Vol 3 | Issue 2 |  July-Dec 2018 | Page 30-35 | Ramesh K Sen, Manuj Aggarwal.

Authors: Ramesh K Sen [1], Manuj Aggarwal [1].

[1] Institute of orthopaedics, Max hospital Mohali, India

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ramesh Sen,
Institute of orthopaedics, Max hospital Mohali, India


Orthobiologics is a newer science that has biologic-based therapies for treatment of various hip, knee, ankle and shoulder pathologies. It involve biological sources which promote and accelerate bone and soft tissue healing and based on theoretical advantages in focal chondral defect, osteoarthritis, AVN hip, plantar fasciitis and various tendinopathies. Strong evidence which support the use of biologic agent such as hyaluronic acid, platelet rich plasma bone marrow aspirate concentrate, largely remain absent from the literature. This article review the existing literature on most commonly employed biologic agent for the different knee, hip, and ankle pathologies. There was a lack of clinical evidence for various treatment strategies; therefore we suggest that there is a need for comparative studies in future.
Keywords: Orthobiologics, Hyaluronic acid, platelet rich plasma, Bone marrow aspirate concentrate; Adipose derived stem cells, Osteoarthritis


1. Acosta-OlivoC,Elizondo-RodriguezJ,Lopez-CavazosR,VilchezCavazos F, Simental-Mendia M, Mendoza-Lemus O. Plantar fasciitis-a comparison of treatment with intralesional steroids versus platelet-rich plasma arandomized,blindedstudy .JAmPodiatrMed Assoc. 2017;107(6):490–6.
2. Ahmed M, Reffat SA, Hassan A, Eskander F. Platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of clean diabetic foot ulcers. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;38:206–11.
3. Alsousou J, Thompson M, Hulley P, Noble A, Willett K (2009) The biology of platelet-rich plasma and its application in trauma and orthopaedic surgery: A review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(8): 987-996.
4. Aufiero D, Vincent H, Sampson S Bodor M (2015) Regenerative Injection Treatment in the Spine: Review and Case Series with Platelet Rich Plasma. J stem cell Res Rev reports 1(4).
5. Bannuru, R., et al., Therapeutic trajectory following intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection in knee osteoarthritis–meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 2011. 19(6): p. 611-619.
6. Bannuru, R.R., et al. Relative efficacy of hyaluronic acid in comparison with NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. in Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism. 2013. Elsevier.
7. Bastos Filho R, Lermontov S, Borojevic R, Schott PC, Gameiro VS, Granjeiro JM. Cell therapy of pseudarthrosis. Acta Ortop Bras Gianakos AL et al .cBMA in orthopaedics 506 June 18, 2017|Volume 8|Issue 6|WJO | 2012; 20: 270-273 .
8. BoesenAP, HansenR,BoesenMI,MalliarasP,LangbergH.Effect of high-volume injection, platelet-rich plasma, and sham treatment in chronic mid portion Achilles tendinopathy :a randomized double blinded prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(9):2034–43.
9. Buda R, Vannini F, Castagnini F, Cavallo M, Ruffilli A, Ramponi L, Pagliazzi G, Giannini S. Regenerative treatment in osteochondral lesions of the talus: autologous chondrocyte implantation versus onestep bone marrow derived cells transplantation. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 893-900.
10. Buda R, Vannini F, Cavallo M, Baldassarri M, Luciani D, Mazzotti A, Pungetti C, Olivieri A, Giannini S. One-step arthroscopic technique for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the knee with bonemarrow-derived cells: three years results. MusculoskeletSurg 2013; 97: 145-151.
11. Campbell K A, Saltzman B M, Mascarenhas R, Khair M M, Verma N N, Bach B R, Jr., Cole B J. Does intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injection provide clinically superior outcomes compared with other therapies in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review of overlapping metaanalyses. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (10): 2036–45.
12. Caplan AI. Adult mesenchymal stem cells for tissue engineering versus regenerative medicine. J Cell Physiol 2007; 213: 341-347.
13. Castricini R, Longo UG, De Benedetto M, PanfoliN, Pirani P, Zini R, Maffulli N, Denaro V: Platelet-rich plasma augmentation for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2011, 39:258-265.
14. Centeno C, Pitts J, Al-Sayegh H, Freeman M. Efficacy of autologous bone marrow concentrate for knee osteoarthritis with and without adipose graft. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 370621 .
15. Centeno CJ, Al-Sayegh H, Bashir J, Goodyear S, Freeman MD. A dose response analysis of a specific bone marrow concentrate treatment protocol for knee osteoarthritis. BMC MusculoskeletDisord 2015; 16: 258.
16. Cervellin M, de Girolamo L, Bait C, Denti M, Volpi P. Autologous plateletrich plasma gel to reduce donor-site morbidity after patellar tendon graft harvesting for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A randomized, controlled clinical study. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc 2012; 20 (1): 114–20.
17. Colen, S., et al., Hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with emphasis on the efficacy of different products. BioDrugs, 2012. 26(4): p. 257-68.
18. Desai P, Hasan SM, Zambrana L, Hegde V, Saleh A, Cohn MR, Lane JM. Bone Mesenchymal Stem Cells with Growth Factors Successfully Treat Nonunions and Delayed Unions. HSS J 2015; 11: 104-111 .
19. Enea D, Cecconi S, Calcagno S, Busilacchi A, Manzotti S, Gigante A. One-step cartilage repair in the knee: collagen-covered microfracture and autologous bone marrow concentrate. A pilot study. Knee 2015; 22: 30-35.
20. Everts PA, Devilee RJ, Brown Mahoney C, Eeftinc k-Schattenkerk M, Box HA,Knape JT, van Zundert A: Platelet gel and fi brin sealant reduce allogeneic blood transfusions in total knee arthroplasty. Acta AnaesthesiolScand 2006, 50:593-599.
21. Everts PA, Devilee RJ, Brown Mahoney C, van ErpA, Oosterbos CJ, Stellenboom M, Knape JT, van Zundert A: Exogenous application of platelet-leukocyte gel during open subacromial decompression contributes to improved patient outcome. A prospective randomized double-blind study. Eur Surg Res 2008, 40:203-210.
22. Filardo G, Kon E, Buda R, Timoncini A, Di Martino A ,Cenacchi A, Fornasari PM, Giannini S, Marcacci M: Platelet-rich plasma intra-articular knee injections for the treatment of degenerative cartilage lesions and osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc 2010, 19:528-535.
23. Filardo G, Kon E, Roffi A, Di Matteo B, Merli ML (2015) Platelet-rich plasma: why intra-articular? A systematic review of preclinical studies and clinical evidence on PRP for joint degeneration. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc 23(9): 2459-2474.
24. Filardo, G., et al., Platelet-rich plasma vs hyaluronic acid to treat knee degenerative pathology: study design and preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2012. 13(1): p. 229.
25. Fukawa T, Yamaguchi S, Akatsu Y, Yamamoto Y, Akagi R, Sasho T. Safety and efficacy of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma in patients with ankle osteoarthritis. Foot Ankle Int. 2017;38(6):596–604.
26. Gangji V, De Maertelaer V, Hauzeur JP. Autologous bone marrow cell implantation in the treatment of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head: five year follow-up of a prospective controlled study. Bone 2011; 49: 1005–9.
27. Gardner MJ, Demetrakopoulos D, Klepchick PR, Mo oar PA: The efficacy of autologous platelet gel in pain control and blood loss in total knee arthroplasty. An analysis of the haemoglobin, narcotic requirement and range of motion. Int Orthop 2007, 31:309-313.
28. Garnavos C, Mouzopoulos G, Morakis E. Fixed intramedullary nailing and percutaneous autologous concentrated bone-marrow grafting can promote bone healing in humeral-shaft fractures with delayed union. Injury 2010; 41: 563-567.
29. Giannini S, Buda R, Cavallo M, Ruffilli A, Cenacchi A, Cavallo C, Vannini F. Cartilage repair evolution in post-traumatic osteochondral lesions of the talus: from open field autologous chondrocyte to bonemarrow-derived cells transplantation. Injury 2010; 41: 1196-1203.
30. Gobbi A, Karnatzikos G, Scotti C, Mahajan V, Mazzucco L, Grigolo B. One-Step Cartilage Repair with Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrated Cells and Collagen Matrix in Full-Thickness Knee Cartilage Lesions: Results at 2-Year Follow-up. Cartilage 2011; 2: 286-299.
31. Gobbi A, Whyte GP. One-Stage Cartilage Repair Using a Hyaluronic Acid-Based Scaffold With Activated Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Compared With Microfracture: Five-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44: 2846-2854.
32. Gormeli G, Karakaplan M, Gormeli CA, Sarikaya B, Elmali N, ErsoyY.Clinicaleffectsofplatelet-richplasmaandhyaluronicacid as an additional therapy for talar osteochondral lesions treated with microfracture surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(8):891–900.
33. Gosens T, Peerbooms JC, van Laar W, den Oudsten BL: Ongoing positive eff ect of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2011, 39:1200-1208.
34. Guadilla J, Fiz N, Andia I, Sanchez M. Arthroscopic management and platelet-rich plasma therapy for avascular necrosis of the hip. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc 2012; 20: 393–8.
35. Haleem AM, Singergy AA, Sabry D, Atta HM, Rashed LA, Chu CR, El Shewy MT, Azzam A, Abdel Aziz MT. The Clinical Use of Human Culture-Expanded Autologous Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Transplanted on Platelet-Rich Fibrin Glue in the Treatment of Articular Cartilage Defects: A Pilot Study and Preliminary Results. Cartilage 2010; 1: 253-261.
36. Hechtman KS, Uribe JW, Botto-vanDemden A, Kiebzak GM: Platelet-rich plasma injection reduces pain in patients with recalcitrant epicondylitis. Orthopedics 2011, 34:92.
37. Hernigou P, FlouzatLachaniette CH, Delambre J, Zilber S, Duffiet P, Chevallier N, Rouard H. Biologic augmentation of rotator cuff repair with mesenchymal stem cells during arthroscopy improves healing and prevents further tears: a case-controlled study. Int Orthop 2014; 38: 1811-1818.
38. Hernigou P, Poignard A, Zilber S, Rouard H. Cell therapy of hip osteonecrosis with autologous bone marrow grafting. Indian J Orthop 2009; 43: 40–5.
39. Hung BP, Hutton DL, Kozielski KL, Bishop CJ, Naved B, et al. (2015) Platelet-Derived Growth Factor BB Enhances Osteogenesis of AdiposeDerived But Not Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cells. Stem Cells 33(9): 2773-2784.
40. Jo CH, Lee YG, Shin WH, Kim H, Chai JW, et al. (2014) Intra-articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a proof-of-concept clinical trial. Stem Cells 32: 1254-1266.
41. Kane JM, Costanzo JA, Raikin SM. The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma for incision healing after total ankle replacement using the agility total ankle replacement system. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(4): 373–7.
42. Koh YG, Jo SB, Kwon OR, Suh DS, Lee SW, et al. (2013) Mesenchymal stem cell injections improve symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy 29: 748-755.
43. Krogh TP, Ellingsen T, Christensen R, Jensen P, Fredberg U. Ultrasound-guided injection therapy of Achilles tendinopathy with platelet-rich plasma or saline: a randomized, blinded, placebocontrolled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(8):1990–7.
44. Krych AJ, Nawabi DH, Farshad-Amacker NA, Jones KJ, Maak TG, Potter HG, Williams RJ. Bone Marrow Concentrate Improves Early Cartilage Phase Maturation of a Scaffold Plug in the Knee: A Comparative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis to PlateletRich Plasma and Control. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44: 91-98 .
45. Kumar S ,Jain SK, Suprashant K, , Yadav A, Kearns SR. Comparison of plantar fasciitis injected with platelet-rich plasma vs corticosteroids. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39(7):780–6.
46. Martinez-Zapata MJ, Marti-Carvajal AJ, Sola I, Exposito JA, Bolibar I, Rodriguez L et al. Autologous platelet-rich plasma for treating chronic wounds. The Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016(5):Cd006899.
47. Matthew R. Kyle, J.D., Kyle Swartout and Richard R. Kyle, M.D. Orthobiologics: Early Adopters are Innovating the Regenerative Medicine Industry with Clinical Results. World stem cell summit •detroit, mi • october 4-6, 2010.
48. Mazzocca AD, McCarthy MB, Chowaniec DM, Cote MP, Arciero RA, Drissi H. Rapid isolation of human stem cells (connective tissue progenitor cells) from the proximal humerus during arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38: 1438-1447.
49. Mei-DanO,CarmontMR,LaverL,MannG,MaffulliN,NyskaM. Platelet-rich plasma or hyaluronate in the management of osteochondral lesions of the talus. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(3): 534–41.
50. Mishra AK, Skrepnik NV, Edwards SG, Jones GL, Sampson S, et al. (2014) Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma for chronic tennis elbow: a double-blind, prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 230 patients. Am J Sport Med 42(2): 463-471.
51. Murray M M, Palmer M, Abreu E, Spindler K P, Zurakowski D, Fleming B C. Platelet–rich plasma alone is not sufficient to enhance suture repair of the ACL in skeletally immature animals: An in vivo study. J Orthop Res 2009; 27 (5): 639–45.
52. Nin J R, Gasque G M, Azcarate A V, Beola J D, Gonzalez M H. Has platelet-rich plasma any role in anterior cruciate ligament allograft healing? Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (11): 1206–13.
53. Park SH, Sim WY, Min BH, Yang SS, Khademhosseini A, et al. (2012) Chip-based comparison of the osteogenesis of human bone marrow- and adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells under mechanical stimulation. PLoS One 7(9): e46689.
54. Patel S, Dhillon MS, Aggarwal S, Marwaha N, Jain A (2013) Treatment with platelet-rich plasma is more effective than placebo for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Am J Sport Med 41(2): 356-364.
55. Radice F, Yanez R, Gutierrez V, Rosales J, Pinedo M, Coda S. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging fi ndings in anterior cruciate ligament grafts with and without autologous platelet-derived growth factors. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (1): 50–7.
56. Randelli P, Arrigoni P, Ragone V, Aliprandi A, Cabitza P: Platelet rich plasma in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective RCT study, 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011, 20:518-528.
57. Redmond JM, Gupta A, Stake CE, et al. Clinical results of hip arthroscopy for labral tears: a comparison between intraoperative platelet-rich plasma and bupivacaine injection. Arthroscopy 2014; 31: 445–53.
58. Repetto I, Biti B, Cerruti P, Trentini R, Felli L. Conservative treatment of ankle osteoarthritis: can platelet-rich plasma effectively postpone surgery? J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017;56(2):362–5. Evaluated 20 patients with symptomatic ankle OA after four weekly PRP injections. At an average follow-up of 17.7 months, the authors found significant improvements in pain, function, and patient satisfaction.
59. RhaDW, Park GY, Kim YK, Kim MT, Lee SC (2013) Comparison of the therapeutic effects of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma injection and dry needling in rotator cuff disease: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 27(2): 113-122.
60. Rodriguez AM, Elabd, C Amri EZ, Ailhaud G, Dani C (2005) The human adipose tissue is a source of multipotent stem cells. Biochimie 87(1): 125-128.
61. Sampson S, Botto-van Bemden A, Aufiero D (2013) Autologous bone marrow concentrate: review and application of a novel intra-articular orthobiologic for cartilage disease. Phys Sport 41(3): 7-18.
62. Sampson S, Gerhardt M, Mandelbaum B (2008) Platelet rich plasma injection grafts for musculoskeletal injuries: a review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 1(3-4): 165-174.
63. Sánchez M, Anitua E, Azofra J, AndíaI, Padilla S, Mujika I: Comparison of surgically repaired Achilles tendon tears using platelet-rich fi brin matrices. Am J Sports Med 2007, 35:245-251.
64. Schepull T, Kvist J, Norrman H, TrinksM, Berlin G, Aspenberg P: Autologous platelets have no eff ect on the healing of human achilles tendon ruptures: a randomized single-blind study. Am J Sports Med 2011, 39:38-47. 40.
65. Sen RK, Tripathy SK, Aggarwal S, et al. Early results of core decompression and autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells instillation in femoral head osteonecrosis: a randomized control study. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 679–86.
66. Shapiro SA, Kazmerchak SE, Heckman MG, Zubair AC, O’Connor MI. A Prospective, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate for Knee Osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45: 82-90.
67. Sheth U, Simunovic N, Klein G, Fu F, Ein horn TA, Schemitsch E, Ayeni OR, Bhandari M: Efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma use for orthopaedic indications: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012, 94:298-307.
68. Stein BE, Stroh DA, Schon LC. Outcomes of acute Achilles tendon rupture repair with bone marrow aspirate concentrate augmentation. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 901-905 [PMID: 25795246 DOI: 10.1007/ s00264-015-2725-7].
69. Steven Sampson, Hunter Vincent, Mary A Ambach and Edwin Amirianfar.Orthobiologics: Where are we Now?Nov Tech Arthritis Bone Res 2(1): NTAB.MS.ID.555576 (2017).
70. Tolbert G, Roy D, Walker V (2013) Ultrasound Guided Dextrose Prolotherapy and Platelet Rich Plasma Therapy in Chronic Low Back Pain: Three Case Reports. Int J Phys Med Rehabil 1: 149.
71. Wang-Saegusa A, Cugat R, Ares O, Seijas R, Cusc ó X, Garcia-Balletbó M: Infiltration of plasma rich in growth factors for osteoarthritis of the knee short-term eff ects on function and quality of life. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011, 131:311-317.
72. Zuk PA, Zhu M, Mizuno H, Huang J, Futrell JW, et al. (2001) Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: implications for cell-based therapies. Tissue Eng 7(2): 211-228.

How to Cite this article: Sen RK, Aggarwal M. Orthobiologics-Today. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-June 2018; 3(2):30-35.

(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)

An Atypical Complication of Osteoarthritis Knee —Non Traumatic Recurrent Haemarthrosis Knee

Vol 2 | Issue 2 | July – Dec 2017 | Page 34-35 | Manoj Shah, Ashok K. Shyam

Authors: Manoj Shah [1], Ashok K. Shyam [2,3]

[1] Shah Fracture Orthopaedic Hospital, Malad, Mumbai, India
[2]Sancheti Institute for Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, Pune, India
[3]Indian Orthopaedic Research Group, Thane, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Manoj Shah
Shah Fracture Orthopaedic Hospital, Srinivas Apartment,
S.V. Road, Malad West, Mumbai – 400064, India


Recurrent synovitis is a known presentation of osteoarthritis but at times the synovium may become very vascular and patient may present with recurrent haemarthrosis. We present a case of recurrent haemarthrosis in an elderly osteoarthritis patient
Case Report: A 72 year old male with tricompartmental osteoarthritis presented four episodes of recurrent haemarthrosis within a span of 2 months. He had recently undergone angioplasty and was on anticoagulants which were stopped in consultant of cardiologist. On recurrence of haemarthrosis, an arthroscopic debridement and synovectomy was done. LOOSE PIECES OF meniscus were also removed but no bleeder was identified. Two days after arthroscopy he again developed haemarthrosis and a digital subtraction angiography was done to identify the feeder vessel. This showed moderate vascular blush around the knee with supply from both genicular branches. Trans Arterial Embolization using polyvinyl alcohol particles was done for both feeder vessels. Patient had not further episodes or haemarthrosis and continues on conservative management of osteoarthritis
Conclusion: Osteoarthritis may lead to severe vascularization of synovium which may present as recurrent haemarthrosis. Finding the cause of haemarthrosis and managing it would relieve the symptoms
Keywords: Recurrent haemarthrosis, osteoarthritis, synovectomy, embolization.


1. Wilson JN. Spontaneous haemarthrosis in osteoarthritis of knee–A report of five cases. Br Med J 1959;23:1327-8
2. Kawamura H., Ogata K., Miura H., Arizono T., Sugioka Y. Spontaneous hemarthrosis of the knee in the elderly: etiology and treatment. Arthroscopy. 1994;10(2):171–175.
3. Morii T., Koshino T., Suzuki K., Kobayashi A., Kurosaka T., Shimaya M. Etiology and treatment of spontaneous hemarthrosis of knee in the elderly. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association. 1990;64:p. S195.
4. Nomura E, Hiraoka H, Sakai H. Spontaneous Recurrent Hemarthrosis of the Knee: A Report of Two Cases with a Source of Bleeding Detected during Arthroscopic Surgery of the Knee Joint. Case Rep Orthop. 2016;2016:1026861.
5. DiNicolantonio JJ, D’Ascenzo F, Tomek A, Chatterjee S, Niazi AK, Biondi-Zoccai G. Clopidogrel is safer than ticagrelor in regard to bleeds: a closer look at the PLATO trial. Int J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 3;168(3):1739-44.
6. Bagla S, Rholl KS, van Breda A, Sterling KM, van Breda A. Geniculate artery embolization in the management of spontaneous recurrent hemarthrosis of the knee: case series. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Mar;24(3):439-42.
7. Weidner ZD, Hamilton WG, Smirniotopoulos J, Bagla S. Recurrent Hemarthrosis Following Knee Arthroplasty Treated with Arterial Embolization. J Arthroplasty. 2015 Nov;30(11):2004-7
8. Waldenberger P, Chemelli A, Hennerbichler A, Wick M, Freund MC, Jaschke W, Thaler M, Chemelli-Steingruber IE. Transarterial embolization for the management of hemarthrosis of the knee. Eur J Radiol. 2012 Oct;81(10):2737-40.

How to Cite this article:  Shah M, Shyam AK. An Atypical Complication of Osteoarthritis Knee —Non Traumatic Recurrent Haemarthrosis Knee. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics July – Dec 2017; 2(2):34-35.

(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)

A Treatment Approach for Articular Cartilage Defects

Vol 1 | Issue 1 |  July – Dec 2016 | Page 10-16 | Kevin C Wang, Eric J Cotter, Annabelle Davey, Lucy Oliver-Welsh, Justin W Griffin, Maximilian A Meyer, Matthew E Gitelis, Brian J Cole.

Authors: Kevin C Wang [1], Eric J Cotter [1], Annabelle Davey [1], Lucy Oliver-Welsh[2], Justin W Griffin[1], Maximilian A Meyer[1], Matthew E Gitelis [1], Brian J Cole [1].

[1] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL , USA.
[2] Tunbridge Wells Hospital, UK.

Address of Correspondence
Kevin C Wang
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St. Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60612


Introduction: Osteoarthritis is one of the most common disease affecting older adults, and can have a drastic impact on quality of life. This degenerative cartilage disease can often be the result of progression of focal cartilage defects. Fortunately, a plethora of treatment options, both surgical and non-surgical, exist for focal articular cartilage defects. However, because the natural history, incidence, and patient demographics of focal articular cartilage defects are not fully defined, it is important to treat these defects on a patient-specific level. Clinicians must integrate many features, including patient-specific goals, risk factors for disease progression, symptoms, lesion characteristics, comorbidities, and responsiveness to conservative treatment in a patient-centered clinical encounter before being able to decide if surgery is indicated and, if so, the optimal surgical management for the patient.
Adapted from: Oliver-Welsh L, Griffin JW, Meyer MA, Gitelis ME, Cole BJ. Deciding How Best to Treat Cartilage Defects. Orthopedics. 2016 Nov;39(6).
Key Words: Articular Cartilage defect, Osteoarthritis, natural history.


Articular cartilage disease, namely osteoarthritis, is the most common joint disease in the world affecting 80% of patients >75 years old [1]. The progression of this disease generally begins with focal cartilage lesions. In a prospective study of 65 patients with a mean age of 62.7 years old, Carnes et al demonstrated that the presence of cartilage defects was shown to independently predict eventual cartilage volume loss and risk of future knee replacement [2]. However, the majority of articular cartilage lesions remained stable with little regression after 2.9 years. In those patients whose defects demonstrated progressive degeneration, baseline risk factors included radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis, tibia size, higher body mass index, and female sex. These factors are important to consider when determining approach to treatment.  Given the risk of cartilage volume loss and correlation with future knee replacement, it is important to consider articular cartilage injuries in younger populations. These injuries commonly occur in young, active patients and generally occur after direct trauma, often in conjunction with other injuries, such as ligamentous or meniscal injuries [3]. These injuries can also arise from degenerative patterns or, less commonly, from metabolic disorders of subchondral bone such as osteonecrosis or osteochondritis dissecans. The treatment of focal articular cartilage disease presents a challenge to physicians because the variability in patient presentation and symptoms makes it difficult to determine the appropriate type and timing of treatment for each patient.
While the incidence and patient demographics of cartilage lesions are not fully documented, full-thickness lesions are more common in athletes than in the general population. In a systematic review by Flanigan et al looking at 931 athletes, 36% were found to have full-thickness lesions on MRI, but only 14% of these lesions presented with associated symptoms [3]. These results highlight an important concept in the management of articular cartilage lesions: treatment must be tailored to address symptoms, not imaging findings.  As the number of treatment options for articular cartilage defects expands, evidence-based, patient-centered decision-making is required to provide the best possible outcomes to patients (Fig. 1).


Unique patient concerns, expectations and goals must be addressed in the treatment discussion. By managing patient expectations to arrive at a mutually agreed upon and achievable goal, physicians can maximize patient satisfaction.
The purpose of this article is to present a systematic approach to decision-making in treating articular cartilage injury and to provide a brief summary of the currently available and up-and-coming treatment options.

Patient-Centered Evaluation

Clinical History: A key to decision-making in the treatment of articular cartilage lesions is the patient-centered evaluation. The past medical history can contribute significantly to the management plan.  Comorbidities, either systemic or joint-specific, previous surgical history, and current medication regimen can impact prognosis and outcome. A thorough history and physical is necessary to elicit patient demographics that influence disease progression and patient outcomes (age, body mass index, sex, malalignment, and smoking status) [2]. Specifically, age has been shown to be predictive of positive outcomes in patients <30 years old [5-7]. However, this should not disqualify older patients from these procedures given the possibility of restoring or prolonging function and delaying the need for a total knee arthroplasty. The clinical history should also include discussion of timing (acute versus chronic), injury mechanism (twisting, fall, or insidious onset), and any concomitant injuries, specifically meniscal or ligamentous injuries.  Articular cartilage injury typically presents as pain localized to a single compartment that is worse with load-bearing and correlates with a defect found on imaging or diagnostic arthroscopy. However, patient presentation can range widely, sometimes even presenting solely as painless joint swelling during activity. It is important to note that symptoms do not reliably correlate with degree of damage, including the size or grade of a lesion [8]. As such, the presence and nature of the patient’s symptoms and their impact on the patient, rather than objective lesion-specific findings, should drive treatment decisions. The type and severity of symptoms (clicking, locking, or swelling), magnitude and quality of pain, and any complaints of instability and loss of function should all be elicited. Exacerbating factors and activities that the patient can no longer effectively or comfortably perform should also be explored. In addition, one should always inquire about pain at rest. Rest pain is unpredictably related to intra-articular pathology and must be approached with caution to manage patient expectations of cartilage surgery resolving this type of pain.

Physical examination: The role of the physical examination in guiding treatment decisions is to confirm that the patient’s symptoms are attributable to the cartilage defect and to detect any comorbidities. It is critical to evaluate gait and gross musculoskeletal deformities to develop a holistic assessment of a patient’s functional abilities and deficiencies. Specifically, axial malalignment or rotational abnormalities must be identified and addressed. These conditions can increase forces through the affected compartment and may need to be corrected prior to cartilage restoration to ensure a successful outcome. Strength and flexibility in both lower extremities should be examined to compare the injured extremity with the healthy, contralateral side. Specifically, the examiner should look for signs of weakness resulting from compensatory mechanics. Additionally, any effusions or limitations in movement or range of motion can reflect the extent of pathology and provide clues on the potential efficacy of specific treatments.

Concomitant Knee Pathologies

It is important to evaluate for concomitant knee pathologies during both the clinical history and the physical examination. Joint-specific comorbidities such as ligamentous or meniscal injury and tibiofemoral or patellofemoral malalignment can influence treatment outcomes. These conditions must be addressed in a comprehensive treatment strategy to ensure optimal outcomes. Sometimes additional surgeries may be required – either in a stepwise progression or concurrently.

Imaging: Imaging is an essential adjunct to the clinical history and physical exam for diagnosis and management. Plain radiographs have a key role in a patient’s evaluation. In both acute and chronic pathologies, weight-bearing anterior-posterior and flexion posterior-anterior radiographs can be used to assess the severity of osteoarthritis [9]. Importantly, severe osteoarthritis is a contraindication to cartilage restoration surgery. Merchant and lateral views of the patellofemoral joint can be enlightening in cases with anterior knee pain worsened by jumping or squatting, but these views can underestimate the extent of cartilage damage. Standing full-length radiographs should be used to assess for malalignment.
While radiographs can help evaluate advanced disease, they have a lower sensitivity for focal defects. In symptomatic patients with normal weight-bearing radiographs, MRI plays a crucial role in assessing for comorbidities, such as meniscal or ligamentous injury, and in evaluating subchondral bone for areas of edema, osteochondritis dissecans, avascular necrosis, or fractures. Additionally, rapid identification, sizing, and characterization of focal chondral lesions can be obtained via 2-dimensional fat suppression and 3-dimensional fast-spin echo sequences. Furthermore, gadolinium contrast sequences can determine the quality of cartilage with regards to proteoglycan content. Despite advancements in imaging technology, arthroscopy remains the gold standard in the diagnosis of cartilage lesions. It is important to counsel patients that arthroscopy with debridement can be both a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure, potentially delaying the need for other surgical treatment. An index arthroscopy can be indicated to evaluate the meniscus, ligaments and intra-articular cartilage if current information is dated or incomplete. Arthroscopy can assess for relevant bipolar disease and provide grading of defects by Outerbridge criteria [10]. As a note, the International Cartilage Repair Society has provided updates to the Outerbridge criteria in their own scoring metric [11].

Lesion Characteristics: The of symptomatic cartilage lesions is determined in part by lesion depth and dimension. Guettler et al showed that lesions >1cm in diameter can lead to deteriorating symptoms [12]. Indications for procedures depend on absolute area. Microfracture and osteochondral autograft transplant surgery (OATS) are recommended for smaller defects (<2.5cm2) and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and osteochondral allografts (OCA) are recommended for larger (>4cm2) defects [13]. It is important to evaluate for lesion depth during arthroscopy because full-thickness chondral lesions (those extending to the subchondral bone) require restorative treatment options – such as OCA. Defect location also plays an important role in management. There are a greater number of treatment options (microfracture, scaffolds, ACI, OCA or OATS) available for condylar defects. Conversely, the patellofemoral joint has much more limited treatment options because it is difficult to match topographically for grafting. Therefore, larger patellofemoral defects are more commonly addressed using surface treatments. Tibial defects also have geometric considerations, and because they are difficult to access and have a lack of evidence available to guide treatment, our approach is to start by correcting meniscal problems, malalignment, and femoral condylar defects as first-line treatment.

Goals of treatment
A tenant of treatment for cartilage defects is to avoid treating radiographic or arthroscopic findings if they do not match patient symptoms. To maximize patient satisfaction, treatment decisions must be made in an effort to address symptoms and after an extensive, patient-centric discussion of risks versus benefit. “Prophylactic treatment” with the goal of preventing disease progression or the future development of symptoms in the absence of current symptoms is discouraged because the natural history and progression of articular cartilage lesions is unpredictable, and thus the outcomes of treating asymptomatic lesions is also unpredictable. In deciding to treat a patient, it is important to focus on individual performance demands – such as return to work or sport. The goals of therapy should vary according to age group and level of baseline (and desired) function (e.g. a teenager with osteochondritis dissecans vs an in-season professional athlete). If the goals of treatment are to return to activities more intense that those required of daily living, this can tip the scales in favor of an operative approach as there is a lower likelihood that initial conservative management will be sufficient. Thoughtful communication between the provider and patient, focusing on functional limitations and specific goals of therapy, allows for mutual understanding and the alignment of provider and patient goals of care.

Nonsurgical care
Nonsurgical care is an important pillar of treatment for articular cartilage defects and should be discussed as an option prior to surgical intervention [14, 15]. Physical therapy and exercise can provide effective symptom relief and longer-lasting relief, and are often used to complement other interventions in younger, more active patients [16]. While the nature of articular cartilage disease often causes patients to become more symptomatic with increasing activity, there is not sufficient evidence that activity results in pathoanatomical changes such as increased cartilage damage or osteoarthritis progression [17]. Thus, while activity should be restricted in patients on an individualized basis, in general, patients should be counseled that benefits of exercise outweigh any negative effects. A significant benefit of exercise is the potential for weight loss. Obesity is highly associated with symptomatic osteoarthritis, and overweight patients should be counseled to lose weight in addition to other interventional measures. In addition to exercise, weight loss, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, another option for nonsurgical treatment is intra-articular injections of corticosteroids, viscosupplementation, and biologics (platelet-rich plasma, amniotic suspension allografts, and bone marrow aspirate concentrate). Intra-articular steroids are widely accepted and simple to use, but have a short-lived clinical benefit of 1-6 weeks with little evidence that benefits remain 6 months after treatment. Conversely, viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid provides longer improved function (24-26 weeks) with consistent benefits across many different groups of patients regardless of amount of baseline synovial fluid [18, 19]. The mechanism of action is likely from improving normal synovial fluid function and articular homeostasis [20, 21]. Biologic injections have shown promise for conservative treatment of articular cartilage lesions. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) likely does not cause cartilage regrowth, but in practice it has demonstrated superior results, especially among active populations with lower grade cartilage damage [22, 23]. While PRP is a relatively expensive treatment option for patients, it has been shown to have good efficacy if used appropriately. It has been well-documented that PRP provides improved symptomatic relief compared to controls [24]. There is also evidence that PRP may stimulate the recruitment and expansion of mesenchymal stem cells, the synthesis of hyaluronic acid, and the production of extracellular matrix. In recent investigations, PRP, particularly leukocyte-poor PRP, has been show to improve symptoms up to 1 year through mostly anti-inflammatory effects [25]. Additionally, a recent prospective study demonstrated PRP to be superior to hyaluronic acid at 1 year follow-up, but both groups continue to have a number of non-responders [26]. Since a significant incidence of non-responders has been shown with both hyaluronic acid and PRP, an appropriate treatment algorithm is to trial a first injection and stop if there is no symptomatic relief. If symptomatic relief is obtained, however, the evidence supports continued treatment for up to three rounds of injections.  Another potentially promising treatment option in the realm of biologics is bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). It is easily collected and has demonstrated good chondrogenic potential, especially in conjunction with surgery. However, regulatory barriers have limited BMAC use as a conservative, intra-articular injection outside of surgery. Mixed results have been reported so far with many ongoing clinical studies [27]. Before BMAC can be used on a larger scale, more investigational trials are required, and regulatory barriers to its use outsides of an operative setting must be overcome.

Criteria for surgery
To ensure an optimal outcome, both the patient and the provider must mutually decide that the operative threshold has been crossed. This means that the patient does not feel he or she is able to continue at the current level of pain or function and conservative options are not sufficient. Prior to deciding on surgical treatment, nonoperative management should be discussed, and the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery. Surgery may be considered as a treatment option only if it is determined that surgical treatment has a reasonable likelihood of meeting patient’s and surgeon’s expectations. Good surgical candidates are those who have failed conservative measures and have recent arthroscopic findings demonstrating pathoanatomy amenable to surgical treatment. In these cases, all information about patient goals and any concomitant pathologies should be considered to work with the patient and develop a cohesive surgical plan through a shared decision-making model.

Surgical Options
Debridement should be the first line treatment for patients with small defects (<2cm2), in-season athletes or patients with lower levels of demand with new symptoms. Simple irrigation and debridement may temporarily improve symptoms in up to 60% of patients, potentially obviating the need for more intensive operations [28-32]. In the senior author’s (BJC) practice, arthroscopic evaluation and debridement are generally conducted on patients for both diagnostic (future operative planning) and therapeutic purposes. In patients planned to undergo a more intensive procedure, intraoperative arthroscopic findings may alter the surgical plan. Marrow stimulation techniques, including microfracture, subchondral drilling, and abrasion therapy, have been shown to have some benefit in patients with moderate symptoms with smaller defects (<2cm2) or in less active patients with larger lesions. However, these techniques result in the generation of type 1 fibrocartilage and are less durable than other techniques, possibly due of the lack of type 2 collagen generation [14, 29, 33, 34]. Commercial scaffolds and biologics may show promise in augmenting these techniques [35]. Osteochondral grafting, with both allografts and autografts, has proved to be an effective technique. Osteochondral autograft transplant surgery (OATS) is a restorative procedure in which a plug of native cartilage from a non-weight-bearing region is harvested and transplanted to fill in a weight-bearing defect, generally for smaller lesions (between 1-4cm2). While OATS has some limitations, including difficulty filling large defects and donor site morbidity, a recent review has shown 72% success at 10 years with high rate of return to sport [36]. Failure of OATS can be predicted by older age, previous surgery, and larger defect size [37]. Osteochondral allografts (OCA) escape many of the limitations of OATS and have been shown to provide reliably good outcomes when treating midsized defects (2-4cm2) [38, 39]. OCA has also shown good outcomes when used as a revision procedure for previous operations, such as microfracture [40], and in pediatric applications [41]. Further applications of OCA include use in bipolar lesions with predominant pathology on one side and in defects of the patellofemoral joint; however, these applications need to be evaluated with more long-term data [42]. OCA has also shown excellent return-to-sport in high level athletes [43]. Given these characteristics, as well as good long-term survival, especially in the femoral condyle [44], OCA has been used increasingly for appropriate patients in the senior author’s practice (BJC). Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), which involves harvesting a patient’s own chondrocytes and culturing them for re-implantation, has demonstrated efficacy for larger lesions. It is less commonly used in femoral lesions due to a relatively high cost and increased work of treatment when compared with alternative, single-staged techniques (OATS and OCA). First generation ACI, using a periosteal patch, demonstrated the complication of patch hypertrophy, but newer patches using synthetic collagen have shown better outcomes with possibly more durability [45-48]. In the senior author’s practice, this technique was primarily used in the patellofemoral joint, but even this application has been slowly phased out in favor of OCA [49]. However, long term data still needs to be developed in the field of patellofemoral cartilage defects.
Emerging treatment options in the field include a new generation of cell-based technology that can hopefully provide improved techniques for ACI. Additionally, future developments of cryopreserved osteochondral allografts and cartilage matrices offer promise in more effective restorative and regenerative treatments. Like existing cartilage treatments, these new treatments need further investigation to determine the patient-specific and lesion-specific treatment parameters that provide the best outcomes.


There are a plethora of surgical treatment options currently available for focal articular cartilage disease, and it is important to properly select patients to ensure optimal outcomes and patient satisfaction. Important criteria to consider before proceeding with surgical treatment of these lesions are patient-specific risk factors for disease progression, comorbidities, lesion characteristics, symptoms, treatment goals, and responsiveness to conservative treatment. Only after discussing all of these factors in a patient-centered clinical encounter can the appropriate decision be made to proceed with surgical treatment.


1. Arden, N. and M.C. Nevitt, Osteoarthritis: epidemiology. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 2006;20(1): p. 3-25.
2. Carnes, J., et al., Knee cartilage defects in a sample of older adults: natural history, clinical significance and factors influencing change over 2.9 years. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 2012;20(12): p. 1541-7.
3. Flanigan, D.C., et al., Prevalence of chondral defects in athletes’ knees: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2010;42(10): p. 1795-801.
4. Driban, J.B., et al., Is Participation in Certain Sports Associated With Knee Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review. J Athl Train, 2015.
5. Bekkers, J.E., M. Inklaar, and D.B. Saris, Treatment selection in articular cartilage lesions of the knee: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med, 2009;37 Suppl 1: p. 148s-55s.
6. Steadman, J.R., et al., Outcomes of microfracture for traumatic chondral defects of the knee: average 11-year follow-up. Arthroscopy, 2003;19(5): p. 477-84.
7. Knutsen, G., et al., Autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture in the knee. A randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004;86-a(3): p. 455-64.
8. Zamber, R.W., et al., Articular cartilage lesions of the knee. Arthroscopy, 1989;5(4): p. 258-68.
9. Kellgren, J.H. and J.S. Lawrence, Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis, 1957;16(4): p. 494-502.
10. Outerbridge, R.E., The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1961;43-b: p. 752-7.
11. Brittberg, M. and C.S. Winalski, Evaluation of cartilage injuries and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2003;85-A Suppl 2: p. 58-69.
12. Guettler, J.H., et al., Osteochondral defects in the human knee: influence of defect size on cartilage rim stress and load redistribution to surrounding cartilage. Am J Sports Med, 2004;32(6): p. 1451-8.
13. Farr, J., P. Lewis, and B.J. Cole, Patient evaluation and surgical decision making. J Knee Surg, 2004;17(4): p. 219-28.
14. Filardo, G., et al., Non-surgical treatments for the management of early osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016;24(6): p. 1775-85.
15. Abbott, J.H., et al., Exercise therapy, manual therapy, or both, for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a factorial randomised controlled trial protocol. Trials, 2009;10: p. 11.
16. Deyle, G.D., et al., A multicentre randomised, 1-year comparative effectiveness, parallel-group trial protocol of a physical therapy approach compared to corticosteroid injections. BMJ Open, 2016;6(3): p. e010528.
17. Alentorn-Geli, E., B.J. Cole, and R. Cugat, Sports Participation and Risk of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Critical Review of the Literature. In: M.N. Doral and J. Karlsson, Editors. Sports Injuries: Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment and Rehabilitation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2015. p. 1-22.
18. Ostalowska, A., et al., Assessment of knee function and biochemical parameters of articular fluid and peripheral blood in gonarthrosis patients following intra-articular administration of hyaluronic acid. Pol Orthop Traumatol, 2013;78: p. 173-81.
19. Telikicherla, M. and S.U. Kamath, Accuracy of Needle Placement into the Intra-Articular Space of the Knee in Osteoarthritis Patients for Viscosupplementation. J Clin Diagn Res, 2016;10(2): p. Rc15-7.
20. Ayhan, E., H. Kesmezacar, and I. Akgun, Intraarticular injections (corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, platelet rich plasma) for the knee osteoarthritis. World J Orthop, 2014;5(3): p. 351-61.
21. Balazs, E.A., Viscosupplementation for treatment of osteoarthritis: from initial discovery to current status and results. Surg Technol Int, 2004;12: p. 278-89.
22. Mascarenhas, R., et al., Role of platelet-rich plasma in articular cartilage injury and disease. J Knee Surg, 2015;28(1): p. 3-10.
23. Chang, K.V., et al., Comparative effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma injections for treating knee joint cartilage degenerative pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2014;95(3): p. 562-75.
24. Campbell, K.A., et al., Does Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Provide Clinically Superior Outcomes Compared With Other Therapies in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses. Arthroscopy, 2015;31(11): p. 2213-21.
25. Riboh, J.C., et al., Effect of Leukocyte Concentration on the Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med, 2016;44(3): p. 792-800.
26. Cole, B.J., et al., Hyaluronic Acid Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma: A Prospective, Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Effects on Intra-articular Biology for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2016.
27. Chahla, J., et al., Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate for the Treatment of Chondral Injuries and Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Outcomes. Orthop J Sports Med, 2016;4(1): p. 2325967115625481.
28. Baumgaertner, M.R., et al., Arthroscopic debridement of the arthritic knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1990;(253): p. 197-202.
29. Fond, J., et al., Arthroscopic debridement for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: 2- and 5-year results. Arthroscopy, 2002;18(8): p. 829-34.
30. Spahn, G., G.O. Hofmann, and H.M. Klinger, The effects of arthroscopic joint debridement in the knee osteoarthritis: results of a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2013;21(7): p. 1553-61.
31. McCormick, F., et al., Trends in the surgical treatment of articular cartilage lesions in the United States: an analysis of a large private-payer database over a period of 8 years. Arthroscopy, 2014;30(2): p. 222-6.
32. Solheim, E., et al., Symptoms and function in patients with articular cartilage lesions in 1,000 knee arthroscopies. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016;24(5): p. 1610-6.
33. Solheim, E., et al., Results at 10-14 years after microfracture treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016;24(5): p. 1587-93.
34. Gobbi, A., G. Karnatzikos, and A. Kumar, Long-term results after microfracture treatment for full-thickness knee chondral lesions in athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2014;22(9): p. 1986-96.
35. Fortier, L.A., et al., BioCartilage Improves Cartilage Repair Compared With Microfracture Alone in an Equine Model of Full-Thickness Cartilage Loss. Am J Sports Med, 2016; 44(9): p. 2366-74.
36. Pareek, A., et al., Long-term Outcomes After Osteochondral Autograft Transfer: A Systematic Review at Mean Follow-up of 10.2 Years. Arthroscopy, 2016;32(6): p. 1174-84.
37. Richter, D.L., J.A. Tanksley, and M.D. Miller, Osteochondral Autograft Transplantation: A Review of the Surgical Technique and Outcomes. Sports Med Arthrosc, 2016;24(2): p. 74-8.
38. Chahal, J., et al., Outcomes of osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. Arthroscopy, 2013;29(3): p. 575-88.
39. Demange, M. and A.H. Gomoll, The use of osteochondral allografts in the management of cartilage defects. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 2012;5(3): p. 229-35.
40. Gracitelli, G.C., et al., Fresh osteochondral allografts in the knee: comparison of primary transplantation versus transplantation after failure of previous subchondral marrow stimulation. Am J Sports Med, 2015;43(4): p. 885-91.
41. Murphy, R.T., A.T. Pennock, and W.D. Bugbee, Osteochondral allograft transplantation of the knee in the pediatric and adolescent population. Am J Sports Med, 2014;42(3): p. 635-40.
42. Meric, G., et al., Fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation for bipolar reciprocal osteochondral lesions of the knee. Am J Sports Med, 2015;43(3): p. 709-14.
43. Krych, A.J., C.M. Robertson, and R.J. Williams, 3rd, Return to athletic activity after osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. Am J Sports Med, 2012;40(5): p. 1053-9.
44. Levy Y.D,.Görtz S, Pulido PA, McCauley JC, Bugbee WD, Do fresh osteochondral allografts successfully treat femoral condyle lesions? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2013;471(1): p. 231-7.
45. Saris, D., et al., Matrix-Applied Characterized Autologous Cultured Chondrocytes Versus Microfracture: Two-Year Follow-up of a Prospective Randomized Trial. Am J Sports Med, 2014;42(6): p. 1384-94.
46. Nawaz, S.Z., et al., Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee: mid-term to long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2014;96(10): p. 824-30.
47. Gudas, R., et al., Ten-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized clinical study of mosaic osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of osteochondral defects in the knee joint of athletes. Am J Sports Med, 2012;40(11): p. 2499-508.
48. Meyerkort, D., et al., Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) for chondral defects in the patellofemoral joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2014;22(10): p. 2522-30.
49. Gomoll, A.H., et al., Autologous chondrocyte implantation in the patella: a multicenter experience. Am J Sports Med, 2014;42(5): p. 1074-81..

How to Cite this article: Wang KC, Cotter EJ, Davey A, Oliver-Welsh L, Griffin JW, Meyer MA, Gitelis ME, Cole BJ. Treatment Approach for Articular Cartilage Defects. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics July – Dec 2016; 1(1):10-16.

(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)