Skip to main content
Orthopedic Reviews logoLink to Orthopedic Reviews
. 2022 Dec 17;14(5):38829. doi: 10.52965/001c.38829

An update on osteochondritis dissecans of the knee

Cosimo Tudisco 1, Gabriele Bernardi 2, Maria Teresa Manisera 3, Fernando De Maio 3, Giulio Gorgolini 3, Pasquale Farsetti 3,
PMCID: PMC9760694  PMID: 36540072

Abstract

Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee (OCD) is a multifactorial pathology in where repetitive microtrauma plays a central role in the etiopathogenesis. Knee MRI is indicated in young, active patients who have knee pain and/or effusion, to make an early diagnosis and decide about treatment, according essentially to the MRI stability signs. The choice of treatment should be also tailored, based on the patient’s skeletal maturity, as well as the size and location of the lesion. Conservative treatment with restricting sports activities is the first line treatment and often sufficient to ensure healing in patients with open physes. Surgical treatment depends on the persistence of symptoms after 6 months of conservative treatment and/or based on the development of signs of instability of the lesion. Stable lesions with intact articular cartilage may be treated by drilling of the subchondral bone aiming to stimulate vascular ingrowth and subchondral bone healing. Every attempt should be made to retain the osteochondral fragment when possible. Instable lesions should be fixed or “replaced” with salvage procedures to prevent the onset of early osteoarthritis in this young population. Furthers studies are needed to improve the knowledge and optimizing non-operative and surgical treatment and to develop noninvasive diagnostic tools to predict with more accuracy the fragment’s stability.

Keywords: Osteochondritis dissecans, knee, articular cartilage, osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee is an idiopathic, focal, acquired condition involving the osteochondral unit (subchondral bone and articular cartilage complex) having the potential to cause instability and separation of the osteochondral fragment from the joint surface which may results in intra-articular loose body formation and premature osteoarthritis.1–3

Historically the term osteochondritis dissecans was described in 1887 by König, who hypothesized an inflammatory genesis at the interface between cartilage and subchondral bone, but subsequent studies have disproved this hypothesis and the exact pathophysiology remains unclear at present.

More recently the OCD has been redefined by The Research on Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee (ROCK) group as a “focal, idiopathic alteration of subchondral bone with risk for instability and disruption of adjacent articular cartilage that may result in premature osteoarthritis”.4

The nature of OCD remains unclear, although several pathophysiology hypotheses have been proposed.5

According to the most recent literature, the etiology appears to be multifactorial and includes “biological factors” (eg. genetic predisposition, deficiency of ossification centers, disorders in blood supply and endocrine disorders such as vitamin D deficiency) and “mechanical factors” (eg. repetitive microtrauma, discoid meniscus, meniscus anterior horn instability, anterior tibial spine impingment).6–9 These factors would act synergistically in determining OCD.

OCD of the knee can be classified in two forms, according on skeletal maturity (open or closed growth plate status):

  • Juvenile OCD (JOCD)10

  • Adult OCD (AOCD)

The crucial difference is that the adult form (AOCD) rarely heals without surgery and has a poor prognosis, while the juvenile form (JOCD) has a better overall prognosis but it can require surgical treatment in case of unstable lesion or failure of conservative treatment.11

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PATHOPHYSIOLOGY

The incidence of JOCD of the knee ranges from 2.3 to 31.6 cases out of 100.000,2,12 with an increasing incidence due to greater use of MRI and arthroscopy in the pediatric population, early competitive activity and intensive training. It mainly affects young males, with a male-to-female ratio of 5:3, mainly between the ages of 11 and 20.6,12

The knee anatomical site most frequently affected by JOCD is the posterolateral portion of the medial femoral condyle (over 70%), followed by the central portion of the lateral femoral condyle (15-20%), the inferior pole of the patella (5-10%) and the trochlea and tibial plateau (<1%).13 Bilateral JOCD varies from 14 to 30%.14,15

The microtraumatic theory of OCD is the one with the highest level of evidence.7,16 The initial factor is the impingment between the medial femoral condyle and anterior tibial spine. Fairbanks17 in 1933 was the first author who proposed traumatic theory as the cause of OCD. Subsequent studies have demonstrated the idea of the repetitive trauma or microtrauma, especially during sports as one of the principal underlying cause of OCD.18

Other factors implicated in this theory are obesity, lower limb alignment abnormalities, soft tissue insufficiency and anatomical variants such as discoid meniscus,19 greater posterior and medial tibial slope,20 smaller intercondylar notch21 and more distal location of posterior cruciate ligament.22

Other theories proposed are local ischemia: in fact, the subchondral bone has a vascularization susceptible to ischemia that is responsible of bone necrosis.23 Endocrine theories see vitamin D deficiency implicated in the etiopathogenesis of OCD.24,25 Some authors have suggested a familial inheritance in the etiology of OCD with reports of familial case and increased incidence in monozygotic twins, suggesting implication of genetic loci involved in cartilage turnover.26,27

Ultimately, the microtraumatic theory plays a central role in the etiopathogenesis of the OCD, despite being a multifactorial pathology.

CLINICAL PRESENTATIONS AND IMAGING

Patients affected by JOCD often presents poorly localized, activity-related knee pain. Weight bearing pain is the predominant symptom present in 80% of case, bus the symptoms are variable and will depend on the location and severity of the disease. Patients may also complain of joint swelling or locking, typical of unstable lesions or detached fragments.

JOCD can occur mainly in three clinical forms:

  • Accidental finding in an asymptomatic individual;

  • Mechanical pain during sports (most common form);

  • Continuous mechanical pain with joint swelling and/or locking

There are no pathognomonic or specific symptoms or signs of JOCD. The physical examination should include the hip (which can commonly refer pain to the knee) and the inspection of contralateral knee to exclude a bilateral form of OCD.

There is just one clinical test described by Wilson28 to identify JOCD only of the medial femoral condyle, although has a limited diagnostic value.29 It consists in flexing the knee from 0° to 90°, and passively extending the knee by internally rotating the foot. The test is considered positive if pain is elicited by internal rotation of the tibia during 30° to 90° of flexion and this pain disappears with external rotation of the foot.

Standard X-ray of the knee is the first diagnostic imaging test, to be performed in the AP, LL and tunnel view. Since the OCD is bilateral in about 15% of cases, it is necessary to perform radiographs of both knees. Typical radiographic appearance is a circumscribed area of subchondral bone separated by a sclerotic and radiolucent outline of the fragment. Radiographs are useful in diagnosis and for monitoring the lesion’s healing but with them it is not possible to assess the viability of the fragment and the subchondral bone-cartilage interface. Also, it’s not useful to predict the stability of the fragment.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the examination of choice in the OCD as well as in diagnosis and for monitoring the lesion. It is able to confirm the radiographic diagnosis by viewing the fragment, which is usually hypo-intense on T1 images and characterized by a heterogeneous signal on T2 images; it also provides a better assessment of the size, the presence of bone edema or cystic lesions surrounding the lesion, the presence of a high signal intensity zone below the fragment or the presence of an intra-articular loose body. MRI has high diagnostic sensitivity, but poor accuracy to predict the stability of the fragment.10,22,30–34

CLASSIFICATION AND PROGNOSTIC FACTORS

During the time have been described several classification systems for OCD, based on radiographs, MRIs and arthroscopic findings (Table I).

Table I. OCD classification systems.

X-ray: Berndt and Hardy35 MRI: Dipaola et al.36 Arthroscopic: Guhl37
Stage I Small area, compression subchondral bone Type I Thickening of articular cartilage and low signal changes, but no break Type I Softening and irregularity of cartilage but no fragment
Stage II Partially detached OCD fragment Type II Articular cartilage breached; low-signal rim behind fragment indicating fibrous attachment Type II Breached articular cartilage, low signal rim behind fragment indicating attachment
Stage III Fully detached OCD fragment, still in underlying crater Type III Articular cartilage breached; high signal changes behind fragment indicating synovial fluid between fragment and under-lying subchondral bone Type III Definable fragment, partially attached but displaceable (flap lesion)
Stage IV Complete detachment / loose body Type IV Loose body Type IV Loose body and defect of articular surface

Berndt and Harty35 described 4 stages of OCD on plain radiographs (Figure 1):

Figure 1. Radiological Classification according Berndt and Hardy.

Figure 1.

  • Stage 1: small area, compression subchondral bone

  • Stage 2: partially detached OCD fragment

  • Stage 3: fully detached OCD fragment, still in underlying crater

  • Stage 4: complete detachment / loose body

Dipaola et al. suggested a classification based on MRI with arthroscopy findings correlations36:

  • Type I: thickening of articular cartilage and low signal changes, but no break

  • Type II: articular cartilage breached; low-signal rim behind fragment indicating fibrous attachment

  • Type III: articular cartilage breached; high signal changes behind fragment indicating synovial fluid between fragment and under-lying subchondral bone

  • Type IV: loose body

Guhl37 described 4 stages of OCD based on arthroscopic findings:

  • Type I: softening and irregularity of cartilage but no fragment

  • Type II: breached articular cartilage, low signal rim behind fragment indicating attachment

  • Type III: definable fragment, partially attached but displaceable (flap lesion)

  • Type IV: loose body and defect of articular surface

More recently, the ROCK Study Group developed a new arthroscopic classification of OCD of the knee divided in two main categories with three subgroups for each category38 with excellent intra and interobserver reliability:

  • Immobile OCD lesions:

    1. Cue ball type (no abnormality)

    2. Shadow type (cartilage is intact and subtly demarcated)

    3. Wrinkle in the rug (cartilage is demarcated with a fissure, buckle and/or wrinkle)

  • Mobile OCD lesions:

    1. Locked door (cartilage fissuring at periphery unable to hinge open)

    2. Trapped door (cartilage fissuring at periphery able to hinge open)

    3. Crater (exposed subchondral bone defect)

Regardless classifications of OCD, the most important aspect is the fragment stability that is the key factor governing prognosis and treatment decisions. The gold standard for the diagnosis of stability of the OCD lesion is the arthroscopic surgery, but it invasive and not amenable for all patient.

De Smet et al.10 defined some criteria of instability of the fragment evaluated on T2 images, among which, the presence of a hyperintense line behind the OCD fragment emerged as the most predictive criterion of instability and failure of conservative treatment (present in 72 % of cases) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. JOCD therapeutic algorithm.

Figure 2.

Also, Kijowski et al.39 showed 100% sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing OCD lesion instability if the following 3 signs were all present: a high T2 signal intensity rim surrounding a JOCD lesion of the same signal intensity as adjacent joint fluid, a secondary outer rim of low T2 signal intensity, and multiple breaks in the subchondral bone plate. Perilesional cysts were also found to be indicators of instability if they were either multiple or single but larger than 5 mm.

Despite MRI high diagnostic sensitivity (approximately 100%), it has poor accuracy to predict the stability of the fragment,10,22,30–34,40,41 especially in patients with open physes.39

Regarding prognostic factors, the age of the patient at the onset of symptoms is a factor that can significantly influence the prognosis. The onset of symptoms in adulthood is related to associated with worse outcomes than in skeletally immature patients13,42,43; in the latter group, age <12 years is associated with a more favorable prognosis. Another prognostic factor is the size of the lesion, with better results in patients with lesions <240 mm2.44

The prognosis also depends on site of the lesions: medial femoral condylar lesions has a good prognosis, instead patellar lesions have a poor prognosis, probably due to a higher rate of fragment instability.11

TREATMENT

OCD treatment has two main objectives: 1) to promote the healing of the subchondral bone and the overlying articular cartilage; 2) ensure joint congruity and to prevent the onset of early osteoarthritis.45

Conservative treatment, is the first line choice of management of JOCD of the knee, although there is no strong recommendation in the more recent AAOS guideline.11

Treatment depends on stability of the lesion, age of the patient and symptoms. We also report our therapeutic algorithm in case of JOCD (Figure 3).

Figure 3. T2 image shows the presence of a hyperintense line behind the OCD fragment indicative of instability.

Figure 3.

Conservative or nonsurgical, treatment has high rates of success in skeletally immature patients and should be the primary approach for stable JOCD of the knee.3,13,46

Non-operative treatment options include: immobilization (casting, bracing, splinting, unloader brace), limited weight-bearing and activity restriction.

When the diagnosis is incidental in an asymptomatic patient, it is sufficient to periodically check the patient until radiographic healing is achieved. In skeletally immature patients, who complain of knee pain and in whom the imaging findings document a stable lesion, conservative treatment continued for 3-6 months is the first-choice therapeutic strategy.

What emerges from a recent review of the literature is a lack of consensus on conservative treatment.3

The proposed non-surgical therapeutic options are represented by: physical activity restriction, physio kinesitherapy and muscle strengthening exercises, load restriction (partial with crutches or total with wheelchair), immobilization (with brace or plaster) and instrumental physical therapies, particularly in patients nearing the end of growth (eg. iontophoresis, shock waves and pulsed electromagnetic fields - PEMF’s).47 Among the various conservative treatments proposed, the restriction or suspension of physical activity (in particular activities involving pivoting, jumping and repetitive impacts) seems to be of primary importance.

Kocher et al.48 proposed a 3-step protocol for conservative management. Initially, immobilization and partial weight-bearing with crutches for 4-6 weeks. In the second phase, after radiographic control, weight-bearing without immobilization is permitted and the rehabilitation protocol begins with muscle strengthening and complete ROM recovery for another 6-12 weeks. If there are radiographic and clinical signs of healing at three to four months after the initial diagnosis, phase 3 can begin with gradual return to sport and a new control MRI is granted.

Persistent pain after 6 months and/or the development of signs of instability requires surgical treatment.

Surgical treatment is indicated after 6 months of conservative treatment with persistence or worsening of pain in the absence of signs of radiographic healing or in the event of signs of instability of the lesion on MRI.

There are several surgical techniques to be used depending on the type of injury: symptomatic and stable OCD lesion are managed by drilling. Unstable OCD lesion are managed by fixation of the fragment.

While, when the fragment has detached, salvage procedures are used.

Symptomatic stable OCD lesions, in which conservative treatment has not led to healing, are generally treated with arthroscopic assisted perforation of the subchondral bone with the aim of promoting healing at the subchondral cartilage-bone interface by promoting blood supply.

Two drilling techniques have been described: trans-articular or antegrade drilling and retro-articular or retrograde drilling.49–56

Trans-articular or antegrade drilling is performed during knee arthroscopy; several holes (5 to 10 depending on the lesion’s size) are drilled orthogonal to the articular cartilage of the OCD lesion with a 1.2-1.4 mm Kirschner wire until reaching the sub-chondral bone (approximately 20 mm deep). This technique is easy and rapid to perform but the disadvantages are that it violates the articular cartilage and far posterior condylar lesions may be difficult to access with this approach (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Trans-articular or antegrade drilling.

Figure 4.

In retro-articular or retrograde drilling, holes are drilled in the subchondral epiphyseal bone under fluoroscopic guidance, from the outside to the inside of the knee, without entering the joint cavity and without violating the articular cartilage, while also sparing the metaphyseal growth plate of patients with cartilage metaphyseal still open. This is more technically demanding respect trans-articular approach because may be hard to locate and achieve accurate placement and depth of drills, requires a longer operative time and radiation exposure (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Retro-articular or retrograde drilling.

Figure 5.

Trans-articular drilling technique is more frequently used,57 although a systematic literature review found no evidence that either method was better than the other.52

Outcomes of OCD drilling are favorable in most cases with high rates of healing and low complication rates.58

Unstable OCD lesions are generally treated with the fixation of the osteochondral fragment,56 with the main goal of preventing detachment or repositioning the detached fragment in the injury site to ensure joint congruity. Fixation is indicated for detached osteochondral fragments with normal macroscopic appearance of the articular cartilage and a layer of subchondral bone.

A variety of techniques have been described for fixation of unstable OCD lesions or detached fragments, such as fixation with resorbable implants (screws, anchors, arrows, pins)59–61 or metal implants (screws or pins),62,63 in combination with fibrin glue.

Regardless of the surgical technique (arthroscopic or open) or the type of fixation used, a fundamental step is represented by the preparation of the receiving “subchondral bed”, through an accurate cruentation for the removal of the fibrotic tissue and drilling to create vascular channels to maximize revascularization and increase the cure rate. If there is a resultant bone void, bone grafting from the proximal tibia or iliac crest is performed.

Generally, when the fragment has a discrete layer of subchondral bone, the choice of the fixation falls on metal screws because they guarantee good compression. The disadvantages are that metallic implants produce artifacts on MRI and often require second surgery to implant removal; also, metallic implant are associated with several complication such as migration, breakage and loosening (Figure 6).

Figure 6. OCD fixation with metallic screw.

Figure 6.

Resorbable fixation devices, composed in polyglycolic acid (PGA) or polylactic acid (PLA), do not require removal, but in some cases resorption of the resorbable material may cause reactive synovitis associated with cystic lesions resulting in failure of synthesis64 (Figure 7).

Figure 7. OCD fixation with resorbable pins.

Figure 7.

The success rate has been reported between 91.7% and 100%57,65 with articular cartilage regeneration.64

Fixation of OCD fragment can be obtained biologically without the use of hardware, with autogenous osteochondral plugs collected from the non-weight-bearing part of the intercondylar notch.66–70

More recently, hybrid fixation has been proposed as an alternative method. It can be used when there is an unstable but partially salvageable OCD fragment, by combining mechanical compression screws (metallic or resorbable) and biological fixation (osteochondral autograft transplantation surgery (OATS)), with good or excellent outcomes.71–73

In some cases, fixation of the OCD lesion is not possible due to excessive fragmentation, incongruity of the donor site or cartilage wear. In these scenarios (rare in pediatric patients), the fragment is removed and the salvage techniques are used74: microfractures (MFX), autologous osteochondral transplants (OATS), fresh osteochondral allografts or autologous chondrocyte transplantation with ACI, MACI or AMIC techniques.

Microfracture drilling has been recommended for OCD lesions < 2 cm2,75 but it should be remembered that treatment with microfracture alone does not restore joint congruency and also in most OCD lesions this may not be possible as the subchondral bone is often absent. The outcomes are satisfactory in the short-term but deteriorate over time.76

For larger lesions, fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation procedures may be used. Advantages of this technique include the avoidance of donor-site morbidity and the ability to address large lesions with a single operation, but extensive serological, bacterial and viral testing of grafts is necessary prior to allograft transplantation.77,78 Also, immunological reactions against bony cells can be a cause of failure.79

Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) or matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) has the same issue of not restoring congruity, although the bony defect can be dealt with using bone grafting. Several authors demonstrate favorable outcomes following ACI in patients with OCD of the knee80–84 (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Unsavable OCD lesion treated with Hyalofast.

Figure 8.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee (OCD) is a multifactorial pathology in where repetitive microtrauma plays a central role in the etiopathogenesis. Conservative treatment with restricting sports activities is the first line treatment and often sufficient to ensure healing in patients with open physes. Surgical treatment depends on the persistence of symptoms after 6 months of conservative treatment and/or based on the development of signs of instability of the lesion.

List of authors and their individual contributions

Tudisco C (MD), (study design, manuscript preparation and editing)

Bernardi G (MD), (data analysis, manuscript preparation)

Maria Teresa M (MD), (data collection, manuscript preparation)

De Maio F (MD), (data analysis, manuscript preparation)

Gorgolini G (MD), (data analysis, manuscript preparation)

Farsetti P (MD), (study design, manuscript preparation)

Disclaimers

The Authors did not receive any funding or financial support or potential sources of conflict of interest.

The study have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.

References

  1. 1. Crawford DC, Safran MR. Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(2):90-100. doi:10.5435/00124635-200602000-00004 [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. 2. Kocher MS, Tucker R, Ganley TJ, Flynn JM. Management of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: current concepts review. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(7):1181-1191. doi:10.1177/0363546506290127 [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. 3. Andriolo L, Candrian C, Papio T, et al. Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee - Conservative Treatment Strategies: A Systematic Review. Cartilage. Published online February 1, 2018:1947603518758435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. 4. Edmonds EW, Shea KG. Osteochondritis dissecans: editorial comment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(4):1105-1106. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2837-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. 5. Tarabella V, Filardo G, Di Matteo B, et al. From loose body to osteochondritis dissecans: a historical account of disease definition. Joints. 2016;4(3):165-170. doi:10.11138/jts/2016.4.3.165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. 6. Grimm NL, Weiss JM, Kessler JI, Aoki SK. Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: pathoanatomy, epidemiology, and diagnosis. Clin Sports Med. 2014;33(2):181-188. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2013.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. 7. Shea KG, Jacobs JC Jr, Carey JL, Anderson AF, Oxford JT. Osteochondritis dissecans knee histology studies have variable findings and theories etiology. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;471(4):1127-1136. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2619-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. 8. Laor T, Zbojniewicz AM, Eismann EA, Wall EJ. Juvenile osteochondritis dissecans: is it a growth disturbance of the secondary physis of the epiphysis? Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(5):1121-1128. doi:10.2214/ajr.11.8085 [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. 9. Camathias C, Hirschmann MT, Vavken P, Rutz E, Brunner R, Gaston MS. Meniscal suturing versus screw fixation for treatment of osteochondritis dissecans: clinical and magnetical resonance imaging results. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(10):1269-1279. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. 10. De Smet AA, Ilahi OA, Graf BK. Untreated osteochondritis dissecans of the femoral condyles: prediction of patient outcome using radiographic and MR findings. Skeletal Radiol. 1997;26(8):463-467. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. 11. Chambers HG, Shea KG, Anderson AF, et al. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on: the diagnosis and treatment of osteochondritis dissecans. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(14):1322-1324. doi:10.2106/jbjs.9414ebo [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. 12. Kessler JI, Nikizad H, Shea KG, Jacobs JCJ, Bebchuk JD, Weiss JM. The demographics and epidemiology of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee in children and adolescents. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):320-326. doi:10.1177/0363546513510390 [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. 13. Hefti F, Beguiristain J, Krauspe R, et al. Osteochondritis dissecans: a multicenter study of the European Pediatric Orthopedic Society. J Pediatr Orthop B. 1999;8(4):231-245. [PubMed]
  14. 14. Mubarak SJ, Carroll NC. Juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: etiology. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;(157):200-211. [PubMed]
  15. 15. Cooper T, Boyles A, Samora WP, Klingele KE. Prevalence of bilateral JOCD of the knee and associated risk factors. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35(5):507-510. doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000000323 [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. 16. Uozumi H, Sugita T, Aizawa T, et al. Histologic findings and possible causes of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(10):2003-2008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. 17. Fairbanks H. Osteo-chondritis dissecans. Br J Surg. 1933;21(81):67-82. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800218108
  18. 18. Edmonds EW, Polousky J. A Review of Knowledge in Osteochondritis Dissecans: 123 Years of Minimal Evolution from König to the ROCK Study Group. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2013;471(4):1118-1126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. 19. Stanitski CL, Bee J. Juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the lateral femoral condyle after lateral discoid meniscal surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(3):797-801. doi:10.1177/0363546503261728 [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. 20. Wechter JF, Sikka RS, Alwan M, Nelson BJ, Tompkins M. Proximal tibial morphology and its correlation with osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(12):3717-3722. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3289-6 [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. 21. Chow RM, Guzman MS, Dao Q. Intercondylar Notch Width as a Risk Factor for Medial Femoral Condyle Osteochondritis Dissecans in Skeletally Immature Patients. J Pediatr Orthop. 2016;36(6):640-644. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. 22. Ellermann J, Johnson CP, Wang L, Macalena JA, Nelson BJ, LaPrade RF. Insights into the epiphyseal cartilage origin and subsequent osseous manifestation of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans with a modified clinical MR imaging protocol: A pilot study. Radiology. 2017;282(3):798-806. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016160071 [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. 23. Tóth F, Tompkins MA, Shea KG, et al. Identification of Areas of Epiphyseal Cartilage Necrosis at Predilection Sites of Juvenile Osteochondritis Dissecans in Pediatric Cadavers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(24):2132-2139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. 24. Oberti V, Ortiz MS, Allende V, Masquijo J. Prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in patients with juvenile osteochondritis dissecans. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2021;65(2):132-137. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. 25. Maier GS, Lazovic D, Maus U, Roth KE, Horas K, Seeger JB. Vitamin D deficiency: the missing etiological factor in the development of juvenile osteochondrosis dissecans? J Pediatr Orthop. 2019;39(1):51-54. doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000000921 [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. 26. Gornitzky AL, Mistovich JR, Atuahuene B, Storey EP, Ganley TJ. Osteochondritis dissecans lesions in family members: does a positive family history impact. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(6):1573-1580. doi:10.1007/s11999-016-5059-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. 27. Yellin JL, Trocle A, Grant SF, Hakonarson H, Shea KG, Ganley TJ. Candidate loci are revealed by an initial genome-wide association study of juvenile osteo-chondritis dissecans. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017;37(1):e32-e36. doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000000660 [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. 28. Wilson JN. A diagnostic sign in osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1967;49-A(3):477-480. doi:10.2106/00004623-196749030-00006 [PubMed]
  29. 29. Zaremski JL, Herman DC, Vincent KR. Clinical utility of Wilson test for osteochondral lesions at the knee. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2015;14(6):430. doi:10.1249/jsr.0000000000000203 [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. 30. Heywood CS, Benke MT, Brindle K, Fine KM. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging to arthroscopic findings of stability in juvenile osteochondritis dissecans. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(2):194-199. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2010.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. 31. Roßbach BP, Paulus AC, Niethammer TR, et al. Discrepancy between morphological findings in juvenile osteochondritis dissecans (OCD): a comparison of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and arthroscopy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(4):1259-1264. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3724-3 [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. 32. Hughes JA, Cook JV, Churchill MA, Warren ME. Juvenile osteochondritis dissecans: a 5-year review of the natural history using clinical and MRI evaluation. Pediatr Radiol. 2003;33(6):410-417. doi:10.1007/s00247-003-0876-y [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. 33. Uppstrom TJ, Gausden EB, Green DW. Classification and assessment of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans knee lesions. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2016;28(1):60-67. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. 34. Hendy SH, Sa D, Ainsworth K, et al. Juvenile Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee: Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Instability Correlate With the Need for Surgical Intervention? Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(11):2325967117738516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. 35. Berndt AL, Harty M. Transchondral fractures (osteochondritis dissecans) of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959;41-A(6):988-1020. [PubMed]
  36. 36. Dipaola JD, Nelson DW, Colville MR. Characterizing osteochondral lesions by magnetic resonance imaging. Arthroscopy. 1991;7(1):101-104. doi:10.1016/0749-8063(91)90087-e [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. 37. Guhl JF. Arthroscopic treatment of osteochondritis dissecans. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;(167):65-74. doi:10.1097/00003086-198207000-00010 [PubMed]
  38. 38. Carey JL, Wall EJ, Grimm NL, et al. Novel arthroscopic classification of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: a multicenter reliability study. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(7):1694-1698. doi:10.1177/0363546516637175 [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. 39. Kijowski R, Blankenbaker DG, Shinki K, Fine JP, Graf BK, De Smet AA. Juvenile versus adult osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: appropriate MR imaging criteria for instability. Radiology. 2008;248(2):571-578. doi:10.1148/radiol.2482071234 [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. 40. O’Connor MA, Palaniappan M, Khan N, Bruce CE. Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee in children: a comparison of MRI and arthroscopic findings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84-B(2):258-262. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.84b2.0840258 [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. 41. Samora WP, Chevillet J, Adler B, Young GS, Klingele KE. Juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: predictors of lesion stability. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32(1):1-4. doi:10.1097/bpo.0b013e31823d8312 [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. 42. Siegall E, Faust JR, Herzog MM, Marshall KW, Willimon SC, Busch MT. Age Predicts Disruption of the Articular Surface of the Femoral Condyles in Knee OCD: Can We Reduce Usage of Arthroscopy and MRI? J Pediatr Orthop. 2018;38(3):176-180. doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000000796 [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. 43. Sales de Gauzy J, Mansat C, Darodes PH, Cahuzac JP. Natural course of osteo-chondritis dissecans in children. J Pediatr Orthop B. 1999;8:26-28. [PubMed]
  44. 44. Krause M, Hapfelmeier A, Möller M, Amling M, Bohndorf K, Meenen NM. Healing predictors of stable juvenile osteochondritis dissecans knee lesions after 6 and 12 months of non operative treatment. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(10):2384-2391. doi:10.1177/0363546513496049 [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. 45. Jones MH, Williams AM. Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: a practical guide for surgeons. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(6):723-729. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. 46. Wall EJ, Vourazeris J, Myer GD, et al. The healing potential of stable juvenile osteochondritis dissecans knee lesions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2655-2664. doi:10.2106/jbjs.g.01103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. 47. Cadossi R, Massari L, Recine-Avila J, Aaron RK. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation of Bone Healing and Joint Preservation: Cellular Mechanisms of Skeletal Response. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2020;4(5):e19.00155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. 48. Kocher MS, Tucker R, Ganley TJ, Flynn JM. Management of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: current concepts review. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(7):1181-1191. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. 49. Adachi N, Deie M, Nakamae A, Ishikawa M, Motoyama M, Ochi M. Functional and radiographic outcome of stable juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee treated with retroarticular drilling without bone grafting. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(2):145-152. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2008.09.008 [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. 50. Yonetani Y, Tanaka Y, Shiozaki Y, et al. Transarticular drilling for stable juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the medial femoral condyle. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(8):1528-1532. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1736-1 [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. 51. Pascual-Garrido C, McNickle AG, Cole BJ. Surgical treatment options for osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Sports Health. 2009;1(4):326-334. doi:10.1177/1941738109334216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  52. 52. Gunton MJ, Carey JL, Shaw CR, Murnaghan LM. Drilling juvenile osteochondritis dissecans: retro- or transarticular? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(4):1144-1151. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2237-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. 53. Hoffmann M, Schröder M, Petersen JP, et al. Arthroscopically assisted retrograde drilling for osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2257-2262. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-1886-9 [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. 54. Edmonds EW, Albright J, Bastrom T, Chambers HG. Outcomes of extra-articular, intra-epiphyseal drilling for osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. J Pediatr Orthop. 2010;30(8):870-878. doi:10.1097/bpo.0b013e3181f5a216 [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. 55. Kocher MS, Micheli LJ, Yaniv M, Zurakowski D, Ames A, Adrignolo AA. Functional and radiographic outcome of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee treated with transarticular arthroscopic drilling. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(5):562-566. doi:10.1177/03635465010290050701 [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. 56. Boughanem J, Riaz R, Patel RM, Sarwark JF. Functional and radiographic outcomes of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee treated with extra-articular retrograde drilling. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(10):2212-2217. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. 57. Abouassaly M, Peterson D, Salci L, et al. Surgical management of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee in the paediatric population: a systematic review addressing surgical techniques. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;2014:1216-1224. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. 58. Masquijo J, Kothari A. Juvenile osteochondritis dissecans (JOCD) of the knee: current concepts review. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(5):201-212. doi:10.1302/2058-5241.4.180079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. 59. Tabaddor RR, Banffy MB, Andersen JS, et al. Fixation of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans lesions of the knee using poly 96L/4D-lactide copolymer bioabsorbable implants. J Pediatr Orthop. 2010;30(1):14-20. doi:10.1097/bpo.0b013e3181c6318c [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. 60. Millington KL, Shah JP, Dahm DL, Levy BA, Stuart MJ. Bioabsorbable fixation of unstable osteochondritis dissecans lesions. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(10):2065-2070. doi:10.1177/0363546510371369 [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. 61. Adachi N, Deie M, Nakamae A, et al. Functional and radiographic outcomes of unstable juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee treated with lesion fixation using bioabsorbable pins. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35(1):82-88. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. 62. Mackie IG, Pemberton DJ, Maheson M. Arthroscopic use of the Herbert screw in osteochondritis dissecans. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72-B(6):1076-1076. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.72b6.2246293 [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. 63. Cugat R, Garcia M, Cusco X, et al. Osteochondritis dissecans: a historical review and its treatment with cannulated screws. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(6):675-684. doi:10.1016/s0749-8063(05)80506-7 [DOI] [PubMed]
  64. 64. Böstman OM, Pihlajamäki HK. Adverse tissue reactions to bioabsorbable fixation devices. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;371:216-227. doi:10.1097/00003086-200002000-00026 [PubMed]
  65. 65. Waters T, Gowd AK, Waterman BR. Management of Symptomatic Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(7):1803-1804. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. 66. Hangody L, Kish G, Karpati Z. Mosaicplasty for the treatment of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. J Sports Traumatol Relat Res. 1998;2:126-133.
  67. 67. Miniaci A, Tytherleigh-Strong G. Fixation of unstable osteochondritis dissecans lesions of the knee using arthroscopic autogenous osteochondral grafting (mosaicplasty). Arthroscopy. 2007;23(8):845-851. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. 68. Miura K, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Sato H, Toh S. Results of arthroscopic fixation of osteochondritis dissecans lesion of the knee with cylindrical autogenous osteochondral plugs. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(2):216-222. doi:10.1177/0363546506294360 [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. 69. Sasaki K, Matsumoto T, Matsushita T, et al. Osteochondral autograft transplantation for juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: a series of twelve cases. Int Orthop. 2012;36(11):2243-2248. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1648-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  70. 70. Keyhani S, Soleymanha M, Verdonk R, Abbasian M. Autogenous Osteochondral Grafting for Treatment of Knee Osteochondritis Dissecans: A Case Series Study. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2020;8(3):426-431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  71. 71. Lintz F, Pujol N, Pandeirada C, Boisrenoult P, Beaufils P. Hybrid fixation: evaluation of a novel technique in adult osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(4):568-571. doi:10.1007/s00167-010-1259-1 [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. 72. Chadli L, Steltzlen C, Toanen C, Boisrenoult P, Beaufils P, Pujol N. Hybrid fixation in adult osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(2):223-225. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2017.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. 73. Melugin HP, Desai VS, Levy BA, et al. Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee: Short-Term Outcomes of a Hybrid Technique to Restore a Partially Salvageable Progeny Fragment. Cartilage. 2020;11(3):300-308. doi:10.1177/1947603518796132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. 74. Polousky JD, Albright J. Salvage techniques in osteochondritis dissecans. Clin Sports Med. 2014;33(2):321-333. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2014.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. 75. Gudas R, Kalesinskas RJ, Kimtys V, et al. A prospective randomized clinical study of mosaic osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of osteochondral defects in the knee joint in young athletes. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(9):1066-1075. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2005.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. 76. Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, Kreuz PC, Mandelbaum BR. Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee: an evidence-based systematic analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(10):2053-2063. doi:10.1177/0363546508328414 [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. 77. Emmerson BC, Görtz S, Jamali AA, Chung C, Amiel D, Bugbee WD. Fresh osteochondral allografting in the treatment of osteochondritis dissecans of the femoral condyle. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(6):907-914. doi:10.1177/0363546507299932 [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. 78. Lyon R, Nissen C, Liu XC, Curtin B. Can fresh osteochondral allografts restore function in juveniles with osteochondritis dissecans of the knee? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(4):1166-1173. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2523-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  79. 79. Gomoll A, Farr J, Gillogly SD, et al. Surgical management of articular cartilage defects of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2470-2490. [PubMed]
  80. 80. Peterson L, Minas T, Brittberg M, Lindahl A. Treatment of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation: results at two to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:17-24. doi:10.2106/00004623-200300002-00003 [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. 81. Mithöfer K, Minas T, Peterson L, Yeon H, Micheli LJ. Functional outcome of knee articular cartilage repair in adolescent athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(8):1147-1153. doi:10.1177/0363546504274146 [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. 82. Kusano T, Jakob RP, Gautier E, Magnussen RA, Hoogewoud H, Jacobi M. Treatment of isolated chondral and osteochondral defects in the knee by autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(10):2109-2115. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1840-2 [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. 83. Kon E, Vannini F, Buda R, et al. How to treat osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: surgical techniques and new trends: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:e1(1-8). [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. 84. DiBartola AC, Wright BM, Magnussen RA, Flanigan DC. Clinical outcomes after autologous chondrocyte implantation in adolescents’ knees. A systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(9):1905-1916. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed]

Articles from Orthopedic Reviews are provided here courtesy of Open Medical Publishing

RESOURCES