% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Pohlig:256514,
author = {Pohlig, Florian and Wittek, Michael and VON Thaden, Anne
and Lenze, Ulrich and Glowalla, Claudio and Minzlaff,
Philipp and Burgkart, Rainer and Prodinger, Peter Michael},
title = {{B}iomechanical {P}roperties of {R}epair {C}artilage
{T}issue {A}re {S}uperior {F}ollowing {M}icrodrilling
{C}ompared to {M}icrofracturing in {C}ritical {S}ize
{C}artilage {D}efects.},
journal = {In vivo},
volume = {37},
number = {2},
issn = {0258-851x},
address = {Kapandriti, Attiki},
publisher = {IIAR},
reportid = {DZNE-2023-00338},
pages = {565 - 573},
year = {2023},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
abstract = {Common surgical treatment options for large focal chondral
defects (FCDs) in the knee include microfracturing (MFX) and
microdrilling (DRL). Despite numerous studies addressing MFX
and DRL of FDCs, no in vivo study has focused on
biomechanical analysis of repair cartilage tissue in
critical size FCDs with different amounts of holes and
penetration depths.Two round FCDs (d=6 mm) were created on
the medial femoral condyle in 33 adult merino sheep. All 66
defects were randomly assigned to 1 control or 4 different
study groups: 1) MFX1, 3 holes, 2 mm depth; 2) MFX2, 3
holes, 4 mm depth; 3) DRL1, 3 holes, 4 mm depth; and 4)
DRL2, 6 holes, 4 mm depth. Animals were followed up for 1
year. Following euthanasia, quantitative optical analysis of
defect filling was performed. Biomechanical properties were
analysed with microindentation and calculation of the
elastic modulus.Quantitative assessment of defect filling
showed significantly better results in all treatment groups
compared to untreated FCDs in the control group (p<0.001),
with the best results for DRL2 $(84.2\%$ filling). The
elastic modulus of repair cartilage tissue in the DRL1 and
DRL2 groups was comparable to the adjacent native hyaline
cartilage, while significantly inferior results were
identified in both MFX groups (MFX1: p=0.002; MFX2:
p<0.001).More defect filling and better biomechanical
properties of the repair cartilage tissue were identified
for DRL compared to MFX, with the best results for 6 holes
and 4 mm of penetration depth. These findings are in
contrast to the current clinical practice with MFX as the
gold standard and suggest a clinical return to DRL.},
keywords = {Animals / Control Groups / Cartilage / DRL (Other) / FCD
(Other) / Knee (Other) / MFX (Other) / cartilage (Other) /
defect (Other) / drilling (Other) / focal chondral defect
(Other) / microfracturing (Other) / regeneration (Other)},
cin = {Animal Facility (Mouse) München},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-2719)1140012},
pnm = {352 - Disease Mechanisms (POF4-352)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-352},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pmc = {pmc:PMC10026649},
pubmed = {pmid:36881065},
doi = {10.21873/invivo.13115},
url = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/256514},
}