Clinical Data Summary
“What is the peer-reviewed literature saying about Arthrosurface?”
Click here to read the summary clinical review document or scroll to read the abstracts by joint.
Shoulder
Hip
Knee
Foot & Ankle
Use the quick links above to jump to the joint of interest
Shoulder
Chronological Peer Review Expert Opinions, Findings, and Comments on the
Arthrosurface Shoulder Technology
Nonarthroplasty treatment of glenohumeral cartilage lesions.
McCarty LP 3rd, Cole BJ.
Arthroscopy. 2005 Sep;21(9):1131-42 Review.
“Specific solutions include focal prosthetic resurfacing (HemiCAP, Arthrosurface, Franklin, MA).”
***
Articular resurfacing of the glenohumeral joint.
Lerwick G.
Current Opinion in Orthopaedics 2005, 16:252-257
"new technology, more conservative, bone sparing approach than the use of a standard humeral stem."
***
Treatment of Chondral Defects in the Shoulder.
Gomoll A, McCulloch P, Kang R, Cole B.
Oper Tech Orthop 2006, 16:232-243.
"restore a smooth and congruent articular surface ... Prosthetic alternative to osteochondral auto- or allograft transfer."
***
Resurfacing Arthroplasty of the Humerus: Indications, Surgical Technique, and Clinical Results.
Scalise J, Miniaci A, Iannotti JP.
Techniques in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 8(3):152–160, 2007
“A defect area measuring guide is advanced over the guide pin next. Both the superior/inferior and anterior/posterior dimensions of the defect are recorded. As chondral lesions are located closer to the periphery, they are found to be in a zone that demonstrates less sphericity on the normal humeral head. Therefore, truly anatomically designed resurfacing implants need to incorporate the options of asymmetric sizing. This feature is integrated into the HemiCAP resurfacing system. By using the measurements of the chondral lesion, an asymmetric implant may be selected to match an asymmetric defect.
To date, 62 patients at 6 institutions have undergone humeral resurfacing with the HemiCAP prosthesis and have a mean follow-up of 8 months. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved significantly from 38 to 70, and Constant scores improved significantly from 55 to 78 … no evidence of implant interface radiolucencies, osteolysis, or loss of fixation has been observed.
Newer resurfacing designs offer the potential advantage of selectively targeting the region of the diseased articular cartilage while preserving areas that are yet unaffected. Furthermore, anatomical reconstruction provided by novel aspherical designs results in less glenohumeral joint stresses with the potential of better function.”
***
Allografts in the Treatment of Athletic Injuries of the Shoulder.
Ho J, Miller S.
Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2007;15:149–157
“Resurfacing techniques have recently become available for the treating orthopedic surgeon. HemiCAP (Arthrosurface, Franklin, MA) is a cap-like implant made from cobalt chrome alloy. Theoretical advantages for its use are its maintenance of bone stock, ease of implantation, and rapid recovery time. Younger patients with humeral head defects >45% can be managed with structural osteochondral allograft or a resurfacing system such as HemiCAP placed into the defect.”
***
Management of localized humeral head defects in the athlete.
Dawson CK, Rolf RH, Holovacs T.
Oper Tech Sports Med 2008 16:14-20.
“In our practice, we have found the HemiCAP (Arthrosurface, Franklin, MA) system to be beneficial in maintaining humeral bone stock while restoring the anatomic articular surface and contouring the prosthesis to the adjacent healthy cartilage. The HemiCAP resurfacing system is indicated in patients with humeral head osteoarthritis, focal chondral defects, avascular necrosis, isolated lesions associated with rheumatoid arthritis, Hill-Sachs, and reverse Hill-Sachs lesions. In young active patients, we find that localized articular cartilage lesions of the humeral head can be treated successfully with limited resurfacing using the HemiCAP system. Overall, the short-term results of the HemiCAP resurfacing technique are encouraging, and further investigation is needed to determine long-term outcomes.”
***
Bony instability of the shoulder.
Bushnell BD, Creighton RA, Herring MM.
Arthroscopy. 2008 Sep;24(9):1061-73.
“Prosthetic resurfacing arthroplasty has also gained popularity recently as a means of addressing large Hill-Sachs lesions and other focal deficits of the humeral head.”
***
Revision arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction for recurrent instability of the shoulder.
Patel RV, Apostle K, Leith JM, Regan WD.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Nov;90(11):1462-7.
“an open re-revision with a Bankart repair and a HemiCAP (Arthrosurface Inc., Franklin, MA)
implant was used to treat a large engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.”
***
Biological Resurfacing of the Humerus in the Athlete.
Stanley R, Bradley E.
Oper Tech Sports Med 2008, 16:21-25
“If patients remain symptomatic 6 months after arthroscopic treatment, partial-surface replacement is an alternative. In patients older than 30 years, a prosthetic replacement with a metallic device (HemiCAP; Arthrosurface, Incorporated, Franklin, MA) is used.”
***
Partial humeral head resurfacing for osteonecrosis.
Uribe JW, Botto-van Bemden A.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Sep-Oct;18(5):711-6.
“This prospective series on partial resurfacing of the humeral head for patients with advanced-stage osteonecrosis has shown it to be effective in relieving pain and restoring function. The rationale for partial resurfacing of the humeral head is particularly compelling for the treatment of atraumatic ONHH. The lesion involves only a portion of the humeral head, and with the exception of stage V cases, the remainder of the joint is relatively unaffected. Biomechanical studies have shown that intramedullary-based humeral head replacement systems cannot replicate the normal articular surface and that such systems displace the center of rotation superiorly and laterally, which may lead to decreased function. As the outcome scores in this study show, restoring the congruity of the humeral head without altering the soft-tissue tension, joint volume, joint height, version, or inclination angle allows improved mobility and function.”
***
Shoulder resurfacing.
Burgess DL, McGrath MS, Bonutti PM, Marker DR, Delanois RE, Mont MA.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 May;91(5):1228-38.
“Partial resurfacing of the humeral head is a newer concept that has been recently incorporated into a prosthetic design … This may be useful for the treatment of asymmetric chondral defects of various sizes. The key feature is that the component can be matched by size and shape to the articular surface for partial resurfacing to address lesions of various sizes.
Normal shoulder anatomy can vary considerably among different individuals as well as between the left and right shoulders of the same individual. Changes in the angle or offset of the humerus during a shoulder arthroplasty can adversely affect the biomechanics of the joint. Alterations of the retroversion or inclination of the humeral head might change the tension and/or the lever arm of the deltoid and rotator cuff muscles, which may lead to a decreased range of motion, weaker flexion, or instability of the joint. Changes in the offset of the humeral head may result in impingement with the acromion or the glenoid rim, increased tension of the rotator cuff tendons, or a decreased range of motion. An increase or decrease in the radius of curvature of the humeral head by 5 mm may decrease the range of motion by 200 to 300, which may increase the extent of glenohumeral translation during movement. These factors could negatively impact the function of the joint as well as patient satisfaction. Partial resurfacing prostheses do not change the offset or center of rotation at all, as they are inserted into the bone defect; this might optimize the biomechanics.”
***
Osteonecrosis of the humeral head.
Harreld KL, Marker DR, Wiesler ER, Shafiq B, Mont MA.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2009 17: 345-355.
“Subtotal resurfacing is done in an attempt to resurface focal chondral defects, as opposed to the entire humeral head. In the setting of a limited chondral defect, this technique has the advantage of preserving the surrounding intact, healthy cartilage.”
***
Partial humeral head resurfacing and Latarjet coracoid transfer for treatment of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability.
Moros C, Ahmad CS.
Orthopedics. 2009 Aug;32(8).
“The Arthrosurface HemiCAP humeral head resurfacing prosthesis … was used to address the Hill-Sachs lesion with a Latarjet coracoid transfer procedure. We were unable to identify examples in the literature of the HemiCAP used in the correction of a Hill-Sachs lesion for recurrent anterior instability. The HemiCAP prosthesis has the benefit of correcting the Hill-Sachs lesion and adjacent chondral defect while preserving uninvolved articular surface. The combination of surgical interventions produced a successful result.”
***
Postsurgical glenohumeral arthritis in young adults.
McNickle AG, L'Heureux DR, Provencher MT, Romeo AA, Cole BJ.
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Sep;37(9):1784-91
“Partial metal resurfacing of the humeral head with a HemiCAP … and dermal graft to the glenoid … was performed in 2 patients, as previously described. With a similar exposure to the humeral head as described above, a HemiCAP metal resurfacing implant was placed on the affected area of the humeral head, ranging in size from 30-40 mm.”
***
Case series: Combined large Hill-Sachs and bony Bankart lesions treated by Latarjet and partial humeral head resurfacing: a report of 2 cases.
Grondin P, Leith J.
Can J Surg. 2009 Jun;52(3):249-54.
“We present the cases of 2 patients whose shoulders required interventions for both the humeral head and the glenoid to remain stable. We reconstructed the glenoid using a Latarjet procedure, and we treated the Hill–Sachs lesion with focal arthroplasty using the HemiCAP implant (Arthrosurface), a novel approach to the problem. At 1 year follow-up, neither patient had experienced a recurrence.
Advantages of using the HemiCAP implant over autogenous bone grafting include the absence of donor site morbidity and disease transmission associated with allografts, possibly, a more accurate contouring and a shorter operative time. The implant is more readily available than allografts and avoids problems associated with graft resorption and hardware prominence … some features of the HemiCAP implant in the shoulder may give it more longevity. First, the implant contains no polyethylene component, which is believed to be one of the major culprits in osteolysis. Second, failure of shoulder arthroplasty is linked more often to the glenoid component than to the humerus, upon which this implant lies. Third, the use of an implant that preserves bone stock makes eventual revision simpler.
When CT scans show that both the humeral head and the glenoid have more than 30% surface loss, the treating physician should be prepared to deal with both problems if instability persists intraoperatively despite fixing one defect.”
***
Management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in the young adult.
Wallace A.
Shoulder & Elbow, Volume 2, Issue 1, pages 1–8, January 2010
“Partial prosthetic resurfacing has been proposed as an option for contained defects in the humeral head. The HemiCAP device (Arthrosurface Inc., Franklin, MA, USA) is a dome-shaped implant available in diameters of 25mm to 40mm with either symmetric or asymmetric curvatures. The cobalt-chrome modular surface (‘contoured articular prosthetic’) is fixed into the humeral head defect by means of a tapered helical titanium alloy screw. Uribe and Bemden reviewed 12 shoulders in 11 patients with osteonecrosis at an average of 30 months after HemiCAP implantation. Pain, functional motion and subjective evaluation scores all improved and there were no complications, although the authors indicated that continued monitoring was required before the effect on the glenoid could be ascertained.”
***
Humeral head bone defects: remplissage, allograft, and arthroplasty.
Armitage MS, Faber KJ, Drosdowech DS, Litchfield RB, Athwal GS.
Orthop Clin North Am. 2010 Jul;41(3):417-25.
“Partial resurfacing has not been widely reported as a solution for humeral head defects in shoulder instability. This technique uses a round cap-like cobalt chrome articular component to fill
the Hill-Sachs lesion and reestablish joint congruity, thus preventing defect engagement. There are multiple sizes and offsets to reproduce the widely varying geometry of the humeral head and the defect.”
***
Diagnosis and management of Hill-Sachs lesion.
Wei Y, Huang W.
Journal of Chinese Clinical Medicine;2010,5;Vol.5,No.5
“the partial resurfacing implant comprises a round cap-like articular surface component made of chrome-cobalt that secures via taper lock to a titanium-coated peg that is cemented into the humeral head subchondral bone. The results of this new approach to deal with the large engaging Hill-Sachs lesion display greater advantages in comparison to bone grafting.”
***
Endoprothetik nach Trauma.
Kösters C, Schliemann B, Raschke M.
Trauma Berufskrankh 2010 • 12:47–52
“Spezialprothesen (z. B. HemiCAP®) bei speziellen Frakturformen, z. B. verhakten Luxationsfrakturen.”
***
Glenohumeral joint preservation: current options for managing articular cartilage lesions in young, active patients.
Elser F, Braun S, Dewing CB, Millett PJ.
Arthroscopy. 2010 May;26(5):685-96.
“This is a review of joint-preservation techniques for the shoulder … Recently, new partial replacements and stem-less implants for shoulder arthroplasty have been developed that are particularly attractive for use in young patients. These implants preserve anatomy and leave open various options for subsequent revision surgery (Fig 5).”
***
Recurrent Shoulder Instability Associated with Bony Defects: A Current Review.
Anakwenze O, Huffman R.
UPOJ Volume 20, 2009-2010,29-35
“in cases in which the humeral impaction fracture exceeds 40% of the humeral diameter, HemiCAP resurfacing or traditional hemi-arthroplasty is the treatment of choice if fresh allograft is not available or the joint shows signs of post-instability arthropathy.”
***
Case reports: two cases of glenohumeral chondrolysis after intraarticular pain pumps.
Anakwenze OA, Hosalkar H, Huffman GR.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Sep;468(9):2545-9.
“Based on clinical presentation and radiographic and arthroscopic findings, she was treated with a HemiCAP right humeral resurfacing implant with a graft jacket interposition of the glenoid … At last followup, … She had returned to competition in NCAA Division I gymnastics during her final year of college without difficulty.”
***
Reconstruction of Cartilage Defects in Military Personnel: The Shoulder.
Frank R, Provencher M.
Tech Orthop 2010;25: 176–188
“recent studies have shown inferior clinical outcomes in younger patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty compared with those seen in the typical patient above the age of 60 years … Recently, Moros and Ahmad described the use of the Arthrosurface HemiCAP … for a significant humeral head defect. In this report, the authors describe a 50-year-old man with recurrent shoulder instability who underwent a Latarjet coracoid transfer procedure to treat a glenoid bony Bankart combined with Arthrosurface HemiCAP humeral head resurfacing to treat a Hill-Sachs lesion. Two years after surgery, the authors reported no further instability events, resolution of pain, and full return to work and ADLs.”
***
Treatment of glenohumeral arthrosis.
Boselli KJ, Ahmad CS, Levine WN.
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Dec;38(12):2558-72.
“Focal humeral resurfacing is an even newer technique designed for the treatment of small or asymmetric unipolar chondral defects. The humeral implant can address lesions of various sizes by matching its shape and size to the articular surface. These partial resurfacing devices have 2 parts that mate: a tapered headless screw and a cobalt-chrome articular component.”
***
Use of a partial humeral head resurfacing system for management of an osseous mechanical block to glenohumeral joint range of movement secondary to proximal humeral fracture malunion.
Eleftheriou K, Al-Hadithy N, Joshi V, Rossouw D.
Int J Shoulder Surg 2011;5:17-20
“The HemiCAP system (Arthrosurface, Franklin, MA, USA) allows a more focal resurfacing of an articular surface and is indicated in the management of humeral head osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis as well as management of local chondral defects and other isolated defects such as Hill-Sachs lesions restoring articular congruity and preserving bone stock. The system provides instruments to map and prepare the focal damaged area to allow implantation of a cobalt–chrome and titanium implant that precisely aligns the contours of the articular surface and restores a smooth articular surface at the area of the defect using a range of implants of varying diameters and curvatures. We … suggest another indication of the HemiCAP focal resurfacing (or similar) system that can provide a good solution in certain cases of proximal humeral fracture malunion, where there is a localized surface problem with an otherwise relatively preserved articular surface, allowing restoration of a smooth continuous surface while preserving bone stock.”
***
Glenohumeral arthritis in the young adult.
Provencher MT, Barker JU, Strauss EJ, Frank RM, Romeo AA, Matsen Iii FA, Cole BJ.
Instr Course Lect. 2011;60:137-53.
“An alternative to arthroplasty, the Arthrosurface HemiCAP (Arthrosurface, Franklin, MA) can also be used as a treatment option for pain relief and restoration of function in the shoulder with both focal and diffuse chondral damage. Using the Arthrosurface HemiCAP on the diseased humeral head is similar in theory to hemiarthroplasty; however, instead of an entire stem positioned into the humeral shaft, the cap is attached to the humeral head with a smaller, central post.”
***
Surface arthroplasty for treating primary and/or secondary shoulder osteoarthrosis by means of the HemiCAP-Arthrosurface® system.
Adalberto Visco, Luis Alfredo Gómez Vieira, Felipe Borges Gonçalves, Luis Filipe Daneu Fernandes, Murilo Cunha Rafael dos Santos, Nivaldo Souza Cardozo Filho, Nicolas Gerardo Gómez Cordero.
Rev Bras Ortop. 2011;46(3):288-92
“The aim of the present study was to present our experience from treating patients with mild to moderate stages of primary and/or secondary osteoarthrosis of the shoulder by means of the HemiCAP-Arthrosurface® system. This method restores the congruence of the humeral head, preserves the remaining healthy joint surface and preserves the bone stock of the proximal humerus … in order to effectively cover the lesions of the humeral head, 80% of the implants used in this study had a diameter of 35 mm and 20% had a diameter of 30 mm. There were none with 25 or 40 mm. Many studies have described the complexity and variability of the geometry of the humeral head. The advantages of the HemiCAP-Arthrosurface® system over conventional arthroplasty on the shoulder are based on preservation of the bone stock of the humeral head and joint cartilage. Furthermore, the joint biomechanics are maintained, including joint height, angular inclination, soft-tissue tension and joint version. Complications relating to the humeral diaphysis and tuberosities are avoided. As seen, we observed very good postoperative results among our patients.”
***
Moderate to large engaging Hill-Sachs defects: an in vitro biomechanical comparison of the remplissage procedure, allograft humeral head reconstruction, and partial resurfacing arthroplasty.
Giles JW, Elkinson I, Ferreira LM, Faber KJ, Boons H, Litchfield R, Johnson JA, Athwal GS.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Oct 29.
“The remplissage procedure was effective at preventing Hill-Sachs lesion engagement; however, it also significantly restricted some shoulder motions … also increased joint stiffness compared with the other reconstructions modeled, which is concerning because the clinical significance of this is unknown. The allograft humeral head reconstruction and the partial resurfacing arthroplasty addressed the HSD in a similar fashion by restoring articular congruity. The allograft humeral head reconstruction successfully prevented lesion engagement and resulted in restoration of biomechanical properties to nearly intact values … However, the clinical use of allograft is limited by the availability of size-matched humeral heads, and the clinical complications reported to result from allograft reconstructions include nonunion, graft resorption, and hardware prominence. The partial resurfacing arthroplasty also provided nearly intact ROM and joint stiffness but resulted in partial engagement in some specimens due to the shape mismatch present when reconstructing a wedge-shaped HSD with a circular implant … To completely reconstruct the HSD without residual defects, a wedge-shaped implant is required. Alternatively, the initial defect could be expanded circularly to match one of the available implants, although this may result in excessive bone removal.”
***
Management of glenohumeral arthritis in the young adult.
Denard PJ, Wirth MA, Orfaly RM.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 May 4;93(9):885-92. Review.
“Proximal humeral arthroplasty most commonly consists of replacement with a stemmed component. Some authors, however, have advocated partial or complete humeral resurfacing. Partial resurfacing involves coring a circular trough around an articular defect. An implant with a diameter equal to the core and a curvature matching that of the native humeral head is impacted into the defect.”
***
Posterior shoulder dislocation: systematic review and treatment algorithm.
Paul J, Buchmann S, Beitzel K, Solovyova O, Imhoff AB.
Arthroscopy. 2011 Nov;27(11):1562-72.
“New prosthetic designs with shaft-less humeral head replacement (e.g., … partial individual humeral head replacement e.g., HemiCAP) provide further options for prosthetic treatment especially in younger patients.”
***
Surface Replacement:
The HemiCAP Solution.
Lenarz C, Shishani Y, Gobezie R.
Semin Arthro, 2011,22:10-13
“Partial resurfacing of the humeral head with the HemiCAP implant has recently become available. Previously, the use of resurfacing in the glenohumeral joint has been used for the treatment of osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, rheumatoid arthritis, and avascular necrosis. The technique has provided significant pain relief as well as improved function in all pathologies in the available short to midterm follow-up studies. The advent of the HemiCAP implant provides the treating physician with an option of a more limited resurfacing for focal defects, such as those occurring with avascular necrosis and Hill-Sachs and reverse Hill-Sachs lesions from instability.”
***
Shoulder References
1. McCarty LP 3rd, Cole BJ. Nonarthroplasty treatment of glenohumeral cartilage lesions. Arthroscopy. 2005 Sep;21(9):1131-42. Review.
2. Lerwick G. Articular resurfacing of the glenohumeral joint. Current Opinion in Orthopaedics 2005, 16:252—257
3. Gomoll A, McCulloch P, Kang R, Cole B. Treatment of Chondral Defects in the Shoulder. Oper Tech Orthop 2006, 16:232-243
4. Scalise J, Miniaci A, Iannotti JP. Resurfacing Arthroplasty of the Humerus: Indications, Surgical Technique, and Clinical Results. Techniques in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 8(3):152–160, 2007
5. Ho J, Miller S. Allografts in the Treatment of Athletic Injuries of the Shoulder. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2007;15:149–157
6. Dawson CK, Rolf RH, Holovacs T. Management of localized humeral head defects in the athlete. Oper Tech Sports Med 2008 16:14-20.
7. Bushnell BD, Creighton RA, Herring MM. Bony instability of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 2008 Sep;24(9):1061-73. Epub 2008 Jun 30. Review.
8. Patel RV, Apostle K, Leith JM, Regan WD. Revision arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction for recurrent instability of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Nov;90(11):1462-7.
9. Stanley R, Bradley E. Biological Resurfacing of the Humerus in the Athlete. Oper Tech Sports Med 2008, 16:21-25
10. Uribe JW, Botto-van Bemden A. Partial humeral head resurfacing for osteonecrosis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Sep-Oct;18(5):711-6. Epub 2009 Jan 30.
11. Burgess DL, McGrath MS, Bonutti PM, Marker DR, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Shoulder resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 May;91(5):1228-38.
12. Harreld KL, Marker DR, Wiesler ER, Shafiq B, Mont MA. Osteonecrosis of the humeral head. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2009 17: 345-355.
13. Moros C, Ahmad CS. Partial humeral head resurfacing and Latarjet coracoid transfer for treatment of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. Orthopedics. 2009 Aug;32(8).
14. McNickle AG, L'Heureux DR, Provencher MT, Romeo AA, Cole BJ. Postsurgical glenohumeral arthritis in young adults. Am J Sports Med. 2009 Sep;37(9):1784-91
15. Grondin P, Leith J. Case series: Combined large Hill-Sachs and bony Bankart lesions treated by Latarjet and partial humeral head resurfacing: a report of 2 cases. Can J Surg. 2009 Jun;52(3):249-54.
16. Wallace A. Management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in the young adult. Shoulder & Elbow, Volume 2, Issue 1, pages 1–8, January 2010
17. Armitage MS, Faber KJ, Drosdowech DS, Litchfield RB, Athwal GS. Humeral head bone defects: remplissage, allograft, and arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010 Jul;41(3):417-25.
18. Kösters C, Schliemann B, Raschke M. Endoprothetik nach Trauma. Trauma Berufskrankh 2010 • 12:47–52
19. Elser F, Braun S, Dewing CB, Millett PJ. Glenohumeral joint preservation: current options for managing articular cartilage lesions in young, active patients. Arthroscopy. 2010 May;26(5):685-96. Review.
20. Wei Y, Huang W. Diagnosis and management of Hill-Sachs lesion. Journal of Chinese Clinical Medicine;2010,5;Vol.5,No.5
21. Anakwenze O, Huffman R. Recurrent Shoulder Instability Associated with Bony Defects: A Current Review. UPOJ Volume 20, 2009-2010,29-35
22. Anakwenze OA, Hosalkar H, Huffman GR. Case reports: two cases of glenohumeral chondrolysis after intraarticular pain pumps. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Sep;468(9):2545-9. Epub 2010 Jan 29.
23. Frank R, Provencher M. Reconstruction of Cartilage Defects in Military Personnel: The Shoulder. Tech Orthop 2010;25: 176–188
24. Boselli KJ, Ahmad CS, Levine WN. Treatment of glenohumeral arthrosis. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Dec;38(12):2558-72. Epub 2010 Jun 3. Review.
25. Eleftheriou K, Al-Hadithy N, Joshi V, Rossouw D. Use of a partial humeral head resurfacing system for management of an osseous mechanical block to glenohumeral joint range of movement secondary to proximal humeral fracture malunion. Int J Shoulder Surg 2011;5:17-20
26. Provencher MT, Barker JU, Strauss EJ, Frank RM, Romeo AA, Matsen Iii FA, Cole BJ. Glenohumeral arthritis in the young adult. Instr Course Lect. 2011;60:137-53.
27. Visco A, Gómez Vieira L, Borges Gonçalves F, Daneu Fernandes LF, et al. Surface arthroplasty for treating primary and/or secondary shoulder osteoarthrosis by means of the HemiCAP-Arthrosurface® system. Rev Bras Ortop. 2011;46(3):288-92
28. Giles JW, Elkinson I, Ferreira LM, Faber KJ, Boons H, Litchfield R, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. Moderate to large engaging Hill-Sachs defects: an in vitro biomechanical comparison of the remplissage procedure, allograft humeral head reconstruction, and partial resurfacing arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Oct 29. [Epub ahead of print]
29. Denard PJ, Wirth MA, Orfaly RM. Management of glenohumeral arthritis in the young adult. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 May 4;93(9):885-92. Review.
30. Paul J, Buchmann S, Beitzel K, Solovyova O, Imhoff AB. Posterior shoulder dislocation: systematic review and treatment algorithm. Arthroscopy. 2011 Nov;27(11):1562-72.
31. Lenarz C, Shishani Y, Gobezie R. Surface Replacement: The HemiCAP Solution. Semin Arthro, 2011,22:10-13
Hip
Chronological Peer Review Expert Opinions, Findings, and Comments on the
Arthrosurface Hip Technology
Arthroscopic surgery of the hip: current concepts and recent advances.
Khanduja V, Villar RN.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Dec;88(12):1557-66.
“The Arthrosurface HemiCAP resurfacing system has been developed to treat isolated and localized chondral lesions and defects. The procedure is intended as a temporizing measure before total joint replacement, especially in the younger patient. The surface of the implant aligns precisely with the contours of the patient’s articular cartilage surface, thus filling the defect and restoring a smooth and continuous surface.”
***
Partial hemi-resurfacing of the hip joint--a new approach to treat local osteochondral defects?
Jäger M, Begg MJ, Krauspe R.
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2006;51(5-6):371-6.
“Partial hemiarthroplasty may represent a new alternative for young patients with a defined osteochondral defect that is limited in extent and adequate bone quality.”
***
Partial resurfacing with varus osteotomy for an osteochondral defect of the femoral head.
Van Stralen RA, Haverkamp D, Van Bergen CJ, Eijer H.
Hip Int. 2009 Jan-Mar;19(1):67-70.
“The combination of the partial resurfacing prosthesis with a limited varus osteotomy offered a joint preserving technique with an excellent short-term result in our patient … the combined procedure may offer a potential solution for circumscribed osteochondral defects of the femoral head in young patients.”
***
Chondral lesions of the hip: microfracture and chondroplasty.
Yen YM, Kocher MS.
Sports Med Arthrosc. 2010 Jun;18(2):83-9.
“the treatment of existing cartilage injuries of the hip has mainly been adapted from studies on the knee. These techniques include chondroplasty, abrasion arthroplasty, osteochondral drilling, osteoarticular autograft or allograft, HemiCAP resurfacing, autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), or microfracture.”
***
Hip References
1. Khanduja V, Villar RN. Arthroscopic surgery of the hip: current concepts and recent advances. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Dec;88(12):1557-66. Review.
2. Jäger M, Begg MJ, Krauspe R. Partial hemi-resurfacing of the hip joint--a new approach to treat local osteochondral defects? Biomed Tech (Berl). 2006;51(5-6):371-6. Review.
3. Van Stralen RA, Haverkamp D, Van Bergen CJ, Eijer H. Partial resurfacing with varus osteotomy for an osteochondral defect of the femoral head. Hip Int. 2009 Jan-Mar;19(1):67-70.
4. Yen YM, Kocher MS. Chondral lesions of the hip: microfracture and chondroplasty. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2010 Jun;18(2):83-9. Review.
Knee
Chronological Peer Review Expert Opinions, Findings, and Comments on the
Arthrosurface Knee Technology
Safety of, and biological and functional response to, a novel metallic implant for the management of focal full-thickness cartilage defects: Preliminary assessment in an animal model out to 1 year.
Kirker-Head CA, Van Sickle DC, Ek SW, McCool JC.
J Orthop Res. 2006 May;24(5):1095-108.
“An extension of the superficial zone cartilage … extended from the implant-cartilage interface centrally across the implant surface … The biocompatibility of the device was reflected in the way it became integrated into the MFC with new bone abutting both the anchor and resurfacing components … no implant instability was apparent either radiographically, histologically, or on manual examination.”
***
Articular Cartilage: Injury Pathways and Treatment Options.
Simon T, Douglas J.
Sports Medicine & Arthroscopy Review: September 2006 - Volume 14 - Issue 3 - pp 146-154.
“Metal surface devices intended to repair localized articular cartilage lesions. An example of such a device is the resurfacing prosthesis [HemiCAP]. This is an anchor-based Co-Cr-Mo alloy implant device that has a surface contour intended to match the articular surface at the treatment site.”
***
Effects of a contoured articular prosthetic device on tibiofemoral peak contact pressure: a biomechanical study.
Becher C, Huber R, Thermann H, Paessler HH, Skrbensky G.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008 Jan;16(1):56-63.
“Defect repair is … regarded crucial to prevent or delay progressive degenerative joint destruction. However, unicompartimental or total knee arthroplasty represent procedures of final resort for some of the affected patients. The HemiCAP® resurfacing prosthesis … offers an interim or alternative treatment strategy for the middle-aged patient with a full thickness cartilage defect … the data suggest that resurfacing with the HemiCAP® with flush implantation does not lead to significantly increased peak contact pressure.”
***
Patellofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty: literature review and description of a novel technique.
Cannon A, Stolley M, Wolf B, Amendola A.
Iowa Orthop J. 2008;28:42-8.
“The advantage of this technique is to perform an anatomical resurfacing by minimizing the amount of bone resection, replacing the degenerative component of the joint and maintain the normal mechanics of the joint.”
***
Focal anatomic patellofemoral inlay resurfacing: theoretic basis, surgical technique, and case reports.
Davidson PA, Rivenburgh D.
Orthop Clin North Am. 2008 Jul;39(3):337-46, vi.
“The HemiCAP resurfacing platform technology … reflects a new paradigm in joint resurfacing, based on intraoperative joint surface mapping, making use of a corresponding patient specific implant. This system allows for restoration of complex geometric surfaces in a variety of morphologic and pathologic states.”
***
Tibiofemoral contact mechanics with a femoral resurfacing prosthesis and a non-functional meniscus.
Becher C, Huber R, Thermann H, Tibesku CO, von Skrbensky G.
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Jun 25.
“the data suggests that resurfacing with the prosthetic device alone with an intact meniscus does not lead to significant increase in tibiofemoral peak contact pressure … Possible effects of reduced meniscal tissue and biomechanical integrity of the meniscus must be considered in an in vivo application.”
***
Patellofemoral Kinematics After Limited Resurfacing of the Trochlea.
Provencher M, Ghodadra N, Verma N, Cole BJ, Zaire S, Shewman E, Bach B.
J Knee Surg. 2009;22:310-316
“The results of this study suggest that the limited trochlear resurfacing provides a unique and favorable alternative to prior implant designs by providing anatomic reapproximation of the patellofemoral surface and knee contact pressures.”
***
The subchondral bone in articular cartilage repair: current problems in the surgical management.
Gomoll AH, Madry H, Knutsen G, van Dijk N, Seil R, Brittberg M, Kon E.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Apr;18(4):434-47
“focal knee resurfacing implants may be appropriate for elderly patients as a less-invasive option for resurfacing localized and deep osteochondral defects, it is important to avoid unnecessary destruction of the subchondral bone resulting from their implantation, particularly in young patients.”
***
Articular cartilage surgery in the knee.
Schindler O.
Orthopaedics and Trauma. Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 107-120, April 2010
“Metallic partial re-surfacing implants, like the HemiCAP® knee implant (Arthrosurface), may be appropriate for patients typically between the ages of 40 and 60 years who have focal condylar defects and who are likely to undergo knee replacement surgery in the future. The procedure is intended to bridge the gap between biologic procedures and conventional joint replacement, and like osteochondral plug implantation can be performed through a mini-arthrotomy. The cartilage defect is milled to a specified depth and width to receive a mushroom shaped implant with a highly polished surface that attempts to closely match the convexity and surface anatomy of the replaced area.”
***
TruFit CB bone plug: chondral repair, scaffold design, surgical technique and early experiences.
Melton JT, Wilson AJ, Chapman-Sheath P, Cossey AJ.
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2010 May;7(3):333-41.
“Limited cartilage resurfacing with metal implants has been described and implants for this exist (such as the Arthrosurface HemiCAP® implant from Northstar Orthopaedics, Newbury, UK). This is not strictly cartilage repair, as it involves replacement of deficient cartilage with a metal disc. Animal testing in a goat model has shown that the implants can appear stable on radiographs with normal joint range of motion and no joint effusion at 4 weeks postoperatively.”
***
Therapie der patellofemoralen Arthrose beim jungen Patienten.
Schöttle PB, Latterman C.
Arthroskopie Volume 23, Number 3, 215-223
“Alternativ (zum Onlay) ist eine unzementierte In¬laytechnik, die einem physiologischem Oberflächenersatz entspricht, zu verwen¬den, bei der die Gefahr des Overstuffings nicht auftritt. Dabei wird die Prothese ent¬sprechend der Trochleakrümmung und -tiefe gewählt und der Knochen nicht ge¬sägt, sondern die Defektzone gefräst. So¬mit ist ein Overstuffing nicht mehr wahr¬scheinlich und die Gefahr eines postope¬rativen Schmerzsyndroms und einer Be¬wegungseinschränkung deutlich geringer.”
***
Finite element simulations of a focal knee resurfacing implant applied to localized cartilage defects in a sheep model.
Manda K, Ryd L, Eriksson A.
J Biomech. 2011 Mar 15;44(5):794-801.
“a defect-sized biocompatible metallic articular resurfacing implant can be used to treat localized cartilage defects in the joints, e.g. HemiCAP™.”
***
Effects of a surface matching articular resurfacing device on tibiofemoral contact pressure: results from continuous dynamic flexion-extension cycles.
Becher C, Huber R, Thermann H, Ezechieli L, Ostermeier S, Wellmann M, von Skrbensky G.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011 Mar;131(3):413-9.
“In conclusion, the data suggest that resurfacing with the contoured articular prosthetic device does not pose immediate deleterious effects to the opposing surfaces based on peak and area contact pressure in an in vitro application. It appears that an appropriately positioned surface matching implant suggests biomechanical safety and may not result in deleterious effects on surrounding biological structures in an in vivo application.”
***
Minimum 5-year results of focal articular prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee.
Becher C, Kalbe C, Thermann H, Paessler HH, Laprell H, Kaiser T, Fechner A, Bartsch S, Windhagen H, Ostermeier S.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011 Aug;131(8):1135-43.
“In summary, by using validated outcome measures and standard radiographs, we have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in the majority of patients and radiological safety after focal prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage and osteochondral defects at the medial femoral condyle at a minimum follow-up of 5 years.”
***
Prosthetic inlay resurfacing for the treatment of focal, full thickness cartilage defects of the femoral condyle: a bridge between biologics and conventional arthroplasty.
Bollars P, Bosquet M, Vandekerckhove B, Hardeman F, Bellemans J.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthros, 2011, Nov. 11.
“Focal femoral condyle resurfacing demonstrated excellent results for pain and function in middle-aged, well selected patients with full thickness cartilage and osteochondral defects. Patient profiling and assessment of confounding factors, in particular mechanical joint alignment; meniscal function; and healthy opposing cartilage surfaces, are important for an individual treatment approach and successful outcomes. The procedure adds to the existing range of focal cartilage procedures and successfully bridges biological treatment options to standard joint replacement allowing a continuation of localized management. Soft tissues and bone stock are preserved providing a delayed exit strategy for traditional arthroplasty as a primary indication.”
***
Knee References
1. Kirker-Head CA, Van Sickle DC, Ek SW, McCool JC. Safety of, and biological and functional response to, a novel metallic implant for the management of focal full-thickness cartilage defects: Preliminary assessment in an animal model out to 1 year. J Orthop Res. 2006 May;24(5):1095-108.
2. Simon T, Douglas J. Articular Cartilage: Injury Pathways and Treatment Options. Sports Medicine & Arthroscopy Review: September 2006 - Volume 14 - Issue 3 - pp 146-154
3. Becher C, Huber R, Thermann H, Paessler HH, Skrbensky G. Effects of a contoured articular prosthetic device on tibiofemoral peak contact pressure: a biomechanical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008 Jan;16(1):56-63.
4. Cannon A, Stolley M, Wolf B, Amendola A. Patellofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty: literature review and description of a novel technique. Iowa Orthop J. 2008;28:42-8. Review.
5. Davidson PA, Rivenburgh D. Focal anatomic patellofemoral inlay resurfacing: theoretic basis, surgical technique, and case reports. Orthop Clin North Am. 2008 Jul;39(3):337-46, vi.
6. Becher C, Huber R, Thermann H, Tibesku CO, von Skrbensky G. Tibiofemoral contact mechanics with a femoral resurfacing prosthesis and a non-functional meniscus. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Jun 25.
7. Provencher M, Ghodadra N, Verma N, Cole BJ, Zaire S, Shewman E, Bach B. Patellofemoral Kinematics After Limited Resurfacing of the Trochlea. J Knee Surg. 2009;22:310-316
8. Gomoll AH, Madry H, Knutsen G, van Dijk N, Seil R, Brittberg M, Kon E. The subchondral bone in articular cartilage repair: current problems in the surgical management. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Apr;18(4):434-47 Review.
9. Schindler O. Articular cartilage surgery in the knee. Orthopaedics and Trauma. Volume 24, Issue 2 , Pages 107-120, April 2010
10. Melton J, Wilson A, Chapman-Sheath P, Cossey A. TruFit CB bone plug: chondral repair, scaffold design, surgical technique and early experiences. May 2010, Vol. 7, No. 3, Pages 333-341
11. Schöttle PB, Latterman C. Therapie der patellofemoralen Arthrose beim jungen Patienten. Arthroskopie Volume 23, Number 3, 215-223
12. Becher C, Huber R, Thermann H, Ezechieli L, Ostermeier S, Wellmann M, von Skrbensky G. Effects of a surface matching articular resurfacing device on tibiofemoral contact pressure: results from continuous dynamic flexion-extension cycles. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011 Mar;131(3):413-9.
13. Becher C, Kalbe C, Thermann H, Paessler HH, Laprell H, Kaiser T, Fechner A, Bartsch S, Windhagen H, Ostermeier S. Minimum 5-year results of focal articular prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011 Aug;131(8):1135-43.
14. Manda K, Ryd L, Eriksson A. Finite element simulations of a focal knee resurfacing implant applied to localized cartilage defects in a sheep model. J Biomech. 2011 Mar 15;44(5):794-801.
15. Bollars P, Bosquet M, Vandekerckhove B, Hardeman F, Bellemans J. Prosthetic inlay resurfacing for the treatment of focal, full thickness cartilage defects of the femoral condyle: a bridge between biologics and conventional arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Nov 11.
Foot & Ankle
Chronological Peer Review Expert Opinions, Findings, and Comments on the
Arthrosurface Foot & Ankle Technology
Implant arthroplasty of the first metatarsalphalangeal joint.
Burks JB.
Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2006 Oct;23(4):725-31.
“Implants of the first MTPJ, if used in the correct patient, can offer significant reduction in preoperative pain and increase the patient’s range of postoperative activity. This article reviews the shortcomings of nonimplant procedures and discusses the advantages of a newer implant for preservation of motion in this joint. Numerous implants have been designed to address arthritic conditions of the great toe. This article focuses on the Arthrosurface (Franklin, MA) system, which has been used in all major joints not as a total implant, but to replace degenerative areas and postpone the need for total joint replacement. The device, when used in the first MTPJ, can anatomically mimic the entire surface of the first metatarsal head and essentially function as a replacement for the entire degenerated surface.”
***
Resurfacing of the First Metatarsal Head in the Treatment of Hallux Rigidus.
Hasselman C, Shields N.
Techniques in Foot & Ankle Surgery 7(1):31–40, 2008
“The HemiCAP prosthesis, as the first metatarsal head resurfacing implant, is a novel approach to the treatment of arthritis of the first MTP joint. All other hemiarthroplasty implants have resurfaced the phalangeal base. Quite often, pain and stiffness, although lessened, still persist with proximal phalanx implants. Our experience with the HemiCAP implant to date revealed superior postoperative range of motion and pain reduction when compared with the other implant hemiarthroplasties. One possible explanation is that hallux rigidus pathology and cartilage loss is primarily found on the metatarsal head, and by resurfacing this side, the damaged cartilage is removed and a smooth and congruent new joint surface is created.”
***
Forefoot Deformity.
Watson T.
Tech Foot Ankle Surg. 2008 Mar;7(1):1
“the Arthrosurface HemiCAP prosthesis presents a modern day solution for hallux rigidus. Where past implants have failed to beat the hallux metatarsophalangeal joint fusion results, there is hope that this implant will be a viable option for patients.”
***
Hallux rigidus: MTP implant arthroplasty.
Sullivan MR.
Foot Ankle Clin. 2009 Mar;14(1):33-42.
“The authors believe that the screw fixation component may provide a stronger construct and be less likely to loosen.”
***
Meta-analysis of first metatarsophalangeal joint implant arthroplasty.
Cook E, Cook J, Rosenblum B, Landsman A, Giurini J, Basile P.
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009 Mar-Apr;48(2):180-90.
“Innovation has produced several implants that have come and gone since the 1950s. To help categorize the history and the various implants available for future study, one may consider categorizing them into 4 generations, as follows:
● 1st generation: material—silicone, design—hemi and total
● 2nd generation: material—improved silicone, design—hemi and total implants with grommets
● 3rd generation: material—metallic, design—hemi and total implants that are press fit
● 4th generation: material—metallic, design—hemi and total implants that have a threaded stem
In regards to patient satisfaction, this comprehensive analysis provides supportive evidence to the clinical benefit of first MPJ implant arthroplasties.”
***
Complications and Salvage of Elective Central Metatarsal Osteotomies.
Derner R, Meyr AJ.
Clin Podiatr Med Surg 26 (2009) 23–35
“In specific cases the authors have used the Arthrosurface … implant to replace the arthritic head of a lesser MPJ.
The Arthrosurface is a two-piece device with a Cobalt chrome articular cap and fixation component. The fixation component is a titanium screw, which is inserted into the head of the metatarsal. Once the exact measurement has been determined, the cap is impacted into the fixation component. Currently and most commonly, the second metatarsal has been replaced. This implant appears to articulate well with the proximal phalanx base and provides more than adequate motion. Studies are needed to determine its long-term efficacy, but early results in the authors’ experience are promising.”
***
First Metatarsal Head Osteoarticular Transfer System for Salvage of a Failed HemiCAP-Implant: A Case Report.
Hopson M, Stone P, Paden M.
The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery 48(4):483-487, 2009
“if this implant fails and requires removal, … Patients … still have the option of first MTPJ fusion without grafting, because the length of the first metatarsal remains uncompromised when this implant is used.”
***
Effect of Implantation Accuracy on Ankle Contact Mechanics with a Metallic Focal Resurfacing Implant.
Anderson D, Tochigi Y, Rudert J, Vaseenon T, Bron T, Amendola A.
JBJS Am, 2010 June, 1490-1500
“In conclusion, focal resurfacing with a metallic implant appears to hold promise as a means to restore more quasiphysiologic contact mechanics in ankles with a large talar osteochondral defect, appreciably reducing biomechanical aberrations presumed to be responsible for whole-joint cartilage degeneration.”
***
Novel metallic implantation technique for osteochondral defects of the medial talar dome.
van Bergen CJ, Zengerink M, Blankevoort L, van Sterkenburg MN, van Oldenrijk J, van Dijk CN.
Acta Orthop. 2010 Aug;81(4):495-502.
“In conclusion, our study shows that accurate and repro¬ducible implantation of this novel metallic implant can be achieved, preventing excessive prosthetic pressure. The results suggest that the implant can be used clinically in a safe way, but the effectiveness and safety of this treatment option should be evaluated in a clinical study.”
***
Osteochondral defects of the talus: surgical treatment and rehabilitation.
Ooij B, Kaas L, Reilingh ML, van Dijk CM.
Archivio di Ortopedia e Reumatologia. 2010, Volume 121, Number 4, Pages 17-18
“To treat patients with a secondary OCD of the medial talar dome a novel 15 mm-diameter metal implant (HemiCAP®) has been developed. The set of 15 offset sizes was designed to correspond with the anatomy of various talar dome curvatures. Recently, two independent groups published biomechanical cadaver studies that provided sufficient rationale for clinical use. In our institution a prospective study was started to evaluate the clinical effect of the metal implantation technique. The procedure was performed in 12 patients. The AOFAS scores improved from 70 (42-75) before surgery to 86 (58- 100) at 1 year, and 90 (87-90) at 2 years follow-up (p < 0.05). There were no clinical or radiographic complications. The metallic implantation technique seems to be a promising treatment for secondary osteochondral defects of the talus, but more patients and longer followup are necessary to draw firm conclusions.”
***
Surgical Treatment of Hallux Rigidus Using a Metatarsal Head Resurfacing Implant: Mid-term Follow-up.
Carpenter B, Smith J, Motley T, Garrett A.
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010 July - August;49(4):321-325.
“In conclusion (thirty-two implantations … average follow-up of 27.3 months), … metatarsal head resurfacing in combination with joint decompression, soft tissue mobilization, and debridement can achieve excellent results in grade II and III hallux rigidus. Salvage arthrodesis remains an option if future revisions are indicated.”
***
Late hematogenous infection of first metatarsophalangeal joint replacement: a case presentation.
Stone PA, Barnes ES, Savage T, Paden M.
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010 Sep-Oct;49(5):489.e1-4.
“The case described in this article illustrates the importance of a careful explanation of this risk to patients undergoing artificial joint implantation, and we believe that it is important to educate patients about this potential long-term complication of artificial joint implantation.”
***
Tertiary osteochondral defect of the talus treated by a novel contoured metal implant.
van Bergen CJ, Reilingh ML, van Dijk CN.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Jun;19(6):999-1003.
“This prospective case report is the first clinical report of a metal implant for OCDs of the talus and gives an insight into the surgical technique and clinical follow-up. Treatment of osteochondral lesions or osteonecrosis by means of metal resurfacing implants is relatively new. During the past 3 years, promising clinical results were reported for the treatment of the femoral and humeral head, as well as the first metatarsal and patellar surface. Two biomechanical cadaveric studies provided foundations for use of the talus implant in the ankle joint … The metallic implantation technique appears to be a promising treatment for osteochondral defects of the medial talar dome after failed primary treatment. Although the clinical and radiological results of this prospective case report with 2 years follow-up are promising, more patients and longer follow-up are needed to draw any firm conclusions and determine whether the results continue with time.”
***
Foot & Ankle References
1. Burks JB. Implant arthroplasty of the first metatarsalphalangeal joint. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2006 Oct;23(4):725-31, vi.
2. Hasselman C, Shields N. Resurfacing of the First Metatarsal Head in the Treatment of Hallux Rigidus. Techniques in Foot & Ankle Surgery 7(1):31–40, 2008
3. Watson T. Forefoot Deformity. Tech Foot Ankle Surg. 2008 Mar;7(1):1
4. Sullivan MR. Hallux rigidus: MTP implant arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Clin. 2009 Mar;14(1):33-42.
5. Cook E, Cook J, Rosenblum B, Landsman A, Giurini J, Basile P. Meta-analysis of first metatarsophalangeal joint implant arthroplasty. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009 Mar-Apr;48(2):180-90.
6. Derner R, Meyr AJ. Complications and Salvage of Elective Central Metatarsal Osteotomies. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 26 (2009) 23–35
7. Hopson M, Stone P, Paden M. First Metatarsal Head Osteoarticular Transfer System for Salvage of a Failed HemiCAP-Implant: A Case Report. The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery 48(4):483-487, 2009
8. Anderson D, Tochigi Y, Rudert J, Vaseenon T, Bron T, Amendola A. Effect of Implantation Accuracy on Ankle Contact
Mechanics with a Metallic Focal Resurfacing Implant. JBJS Am, 2010 June, 1490-1500
9. van Bergen CJ, Zengerink M, Blankevoort L, van Sterkenburg MN, van Oldenrijk J, van Dijk CN. Novel metallic implantation technique for osteochondral defects of the medial talar dome. Acta Orthop. 2010 Aug;81(4):495-502.
10. Ooij B, Kaas L, Reilingh ML, van Dijk CM. Osteochondral defects of the talus: surgical treatment and rehabilitation. Archivio di Ortopedia e Reumatologia. 2010, Volume 121, Number 4, Pages 17-18
11. Carpenter B, Smith J, Motley T, Garrett A. Surgical Treatment of Hallux Rigidus Using a Metatarsal Head Resurfacing Implant: Mid-term Follow-up. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010 July - August;49(4):321-325.
12. Stone PA, Barnes ES, Savage T, Paden M. Late hematogenous infection of first metatarsophalangeal joint replacement: a case presentation. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010 Sep-Oct;49(5):489.e1-4. Epub 2010 Jun 29.
13. van Bergen CJ, Reilingh ML, van Dijk CN. Tertiary osteochondral defect of the talus treated by a novel contoured metal implant. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Jun;19(6):999-1003.
