The use of a hydrogel implant in the repair of osteochondral defects of the knee: A biomechanical evaluation of restoration of native contact pressures in cadaver knees. (July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sismondo, Ronald A.; Werner, Frederick W.; Ordway, Nathaniel R.; Osaheni, Allen O.; Blum, Michelle M.; Scuderi, Matthew G.
• Is Part Of: Clinical biomechanics. Volume 67(2019)
• Page Start: 15
• Page End: 19
• Publication Date: 2019-07
• Subjects: Osteochondral defects -- Hydrogel implants -- Knee -- Hydrogel implant -- Cartilage implant; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Osteopathic medicine -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Osteopathic Medicine -- Periodicals; 612.76
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.04.016
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0268-0033

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Osteochondral injuries have been treated by a variety of methods, each having its own drawbacks. The purpose of this study was to determine the biomechanical feasibility of using a hydrogel implant replacement for an osteochondral core defect. The hypothesis of this study was that the contact pressure of the native knee can be recreated with the use of a hydrogel implant. Methods: Six cadaver knees were tested in a knee simulator while contact pressures were measured on the tibial plateau. Pressure data was collected in the intact knee, after coring of the condyle and after insertion of a hydrogel implant. Following 1000 gait cycles of fatigue testing, each knee was taken through axial loading indentation testing where the stiffness of the in situ implant was compared to the contralateral condyle. Findings: While coring significantly reduced the peak pressure at the coring site from 1.8 MPa in the intact knee to 0.0 MPa after coring, implant insertion significantly increased it to 1.2 MPa. There was no significant difference in the peak pressures or the average pressures at the hole location between the intact knee and following implant insertion. After fatigue testing, no macroscopic loosening or implant damage was observed. Based on indentation testing, the stiffness of the medial condyle, 157 N/mm, was significantly less than the lateral condyle, 696 N/mm. Interpretation: The insertion of the hydrogel implant was able to achieve restoration of contact pressures in the knee supporting the viability of hydrogel implants in the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the knee. Highlights: Osteochondral injuries have been treated by various methods, each with limitations. The feasibility of using a hydrogel implant for osteochondral injury was examined. Coring was reduced the intact contact pressure from 1.8 MPa to 0.0 MPa. Implant insertion significantly restored the peak pressure to 1.2 MPa. The possible use of hydrogel implants for osteochondral lesions is supported.