Cargando…

Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasonography Plus Arthroscopic Drilling Does Not Improve Bone Healing More Than Arthroscopic Drilling Alone in Pediatric Patients With Stable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee

PURPOSE: To determine whether adjuvant use of bone stimulation would improve the rate of healing in the operative management of stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee in pediatric patients. METHODS: This retrospective matched case-control study was performed at a single tertiary care ped...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guevel, Borna, Mathew, Stephen T., Coene, Ryan P., Maguire, Kathleen j., Williams, Kathryn A., Micheli, Lyle J., Milewski, Matthew D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9971866/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36866308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.11.018
_version_ 1784898193455054848
author Guevel, Borna
Mathew, Stephen T.
Coene, Ryan P.
Maguire, Kathleen j.
Williams, Kathryn A.
Micheli, Lyle J.
Milewski, Matthew D.
author_facet Guevel, Borna
Mathew, Stephen T.
Coene, Ryan P.
Maguire, Kathleen j.
Williams, Kathryn A.
Micheli, Lyle J.
Milewski, Matthew D.
author_sort Guevel, Borna
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To determine whether adjuvant use of bone stimulation would improve the rate of healing in the operative management of stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee in pediatric patients. METHODS: This retrospective matched case-control study was performed at a single tertiary care pediatric hospital between January 2015 and September 2018. Patients who underwent antegrade drilling for stable femoral condyle OCD with greater than 2 years’ follow-up were included. Preference was for all to receive postoperative bone stimulation; however, some were denied because of insurance coverage. This enabled us to create 2 matched groups of those who received postoperative bone stimulation and those who did not. Patients were matched on skeletal maturity, lesion location, sex, and age at surgery. The primary outcome measure was the rate of healing of the lesions determined by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging measurements at 3 months. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were identified who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty patients from the bone stimulator group (BSTIM) were matched to 20 patients from the no bone stimulator group (NBSTIM). Mean age for BSTIM at surgery was 13.2 years ± 2.0 (range, 10.9-16.7) and for NBSTIM at surgery 12.9 years ± 2.0 (range, 9.3-17.3). At 2 years, 36 patients (90%) in both groups went on to clinical healing without further interventions. In BSTIM, there was a mean decrease of 0.9 (±1.8) mm in lesion on coronal width and 12 patients (63%) had overall improved healing; in NBSTIM there was a mean decrease of 0.8 (±3.6) mm in coronal width and 14 patients (78%) had improved healing. No statistical differences in the rate of healing were found between the 2 groups (P = .706). CONCLUSION: In antegrade drilling of stable knee OCD lesions in pediatric and adolescent patients, adjuvant bone stimulator use did not appear to improve radiographic or clinical healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case-control study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9971866
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99718662023-03-01 Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasonography Plus Arthroscopic Drilling Does Not Improve Bone Healing More Than Arthroscopic Drilling Alone in Pediatric Patients With Stable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee Guevel, Borna Mathew, Stephen T. Coene, Ryan P. Maguire, Kathleen j. Williams, Kathryn A. Micheli, Lyle J. Milewski, Matthew D. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Original Article PURPOSE: To determine whether adjuvant use of bone stimulation would improve the rate of healing in the operative management of stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee in pediatric patients. METHODS: This retrospective matched case-control study was performed at a single tertiary care pediatric hospital between January 2015 and September 2018. Patients who underwent antegrade drilling for stable femoral condyle OCD with greater than 2 years’ follow-up were included. Preference was for all to receive postoperative bone stimulation; however, some were denied because of insurance coverage. This enabled us to create 2 matched groups of those who received postoperative bone stimulation and those who did not. Patients were matched on skeletal maturity, lesion location, sex, and age at surgery. The primary outcome measure was the rate of healing of the lesions determined by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging measurements at 3 months. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were identified who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty patients from the bone stimulator group (BSTIM) were matched to 20 patients from the no bone stimulator group (NBSTIM). Mean age for BSTIM at surgery was 13.2 years ± 2.0 (range, 10.9-16.7) and for NBSTIM at surgery 12.9 years ± 2.0 (range, 9.3-17.3). At 2 years, 36 patients (90%) in both groups went on to clinical healing without further interventions. In BSTIM, there was a mean decrease of 0.9 (±1.8) mm in lesion on coronal width and 12 patients (63%) had overall improved healing; in NBSTIM there was a mean decrease of 0.8 (±3.6) mm in coronal width and 14 patients (78%) had improved healing. No statistical differences in the rate of healing were found between the 2 groups (P = .706). CONCLUSION: In antegrade drilling of stable knee OCD lesions in pediatric and adolescent patients, adjuvant bone stimulator use did not appear to improve radiographic or clinical healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case-control study. Elsevier 2023-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9971866/ /pubmed/36866308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.11.018 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Guevel, Borna
Mathew, Stephen T.
Coene, Ryan P.
Maguire, Kathleen j.
Williams, Kathryn A.
Micheli, Lyle J.
Milewski, Matthew D.
Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasonography Plus Arthroscopic Drilling Does Not Improve Bone Healing More Than Arthroscopic Drilling Alone in Pediatric Patients With Stable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee
title Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasonography Plus Arthroscopic Drilling Does Not Improve Bone Healing More Than Arthroscopic Drilling Alone in Pediatric Patients With Stable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee
title_full Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasonography Plus Arthroscopic Drilling Does Not Improve Bone Healing More Than Arthroscopic Drilling Alone in Pediatric Patients With Stable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee
title_fullStr Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasonography Plus Arthroscopic Drilling Does Not Improve Bone Healing More Than Arthroscopic Drilling Alone in Pediatric Patients With Stable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee
title_full_unstemmed Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasonography Plus Arthroscopic Drilling Does Not Improve Bone Healing More Than Arthroscopic Drilling Alone in Pediatric Patients With Stable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee
title_short Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasonography Plus Arthroscopic Drilling Does Not Improve Bone Healing More Than Arthroscopic Drilling Alone in Pediatric Patients With Stable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee
title_sort low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography plus arthroscopic drilling does not improve bone healing more than arthroscopic drilling alone in pediatric patients with stable osteochondritis dissecans of the knee
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9971866/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36866308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.11.018
work_keys_str_mv AT guevelborna lowintensitypulsedultrasonographyplusarthroscopicdrillingdoesnotimprovebonehealingmorethanarthroscopicdrillingaloneinpediatricpatientswithstableosteochondritisdissecansoftheknee
AT mathewstephent lowintensitypulsedultrasonographyplusarthroscopicdrillingdoesnotimprovebonehealingmorethanarthroscopicdrillingaloneinpediatricpatientswithstableosteochondritisdissecansoftheknee
AT coeneryanp lowintensitypulsedultrasonographyplusarthroscopicdrillingdoesnotimprovebonehealingmorethanarthroscopicdrillingaloneinpediatricpatientswithstableosteochondritisdissecansoftheknee
AT maguirekathleenj lowintensitypulsedultrasonographyplusarthroscopicdrillingdoesnotimprovebonehealingmorethanarthroscopicdrillingaloneinpediatricpatientswithstableosteochondritisdissecansoftheknee
AT williamskathryna lowintensitypulsedultrasonographyplusarthroscopicdrillingdoesnotimprovebonehealingmorethanarthroscopicdrillingaloneinpediatricpatientswithstableosteochondritisdissecansoftheknee
AT michelilylej lowintensitypulsedultrasonographyplusarthroscopicdrillingdoesnotimprovebonehealingmorethanarthroscopicdrillingaloneinpediatricpatientswithstableosteochondritisdissecansoftheknee
AT milewskimatthewd lowintensitypulsedultrasonographyplusarthroscopicdrillingdoesnotimprovebonehealingmorethanarthroscopicdrillingaloneinpediatricpatientswithstableosteochondritisdissecansoftheknee