Aims

Local recurrence remains a challenging and common problem following curettage and joint-sparing surgery for giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB). We previously reported a 15% local recurrence rate at a median follow-up of 30 months in 20 patients with high-risk GCTB treated with neoadjuvant Denosumab. The aim of this study was to determine if this initial favourable outcome following the use of Denosumab was maintained with longer follow-up.

There are a number of progressive conditions that afflict the hip and result in degenerative arthritis. Along the path of progression of the disease and prior to the development of arthritis, some of these conditions may be treatable by joint preservation procedures. Periacetabular osteotomy for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), femoroacetabular osteoplasty for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), and a variety of surgical procedures for management of early osteonecrosis of the femoral head are some examples of joint preservation of the hip. DDH is characterised by abnormal development of the acetabulum and the proximal femur that leads to suboptimal contact of the articular surfaces and the resultant increase in joint reaction forces. FAI is a condition characterised by an abnormal contact between the femoral neck and the acetabular rim. FAI is believed to exist when a triad of signs (abnormal alpha angle, labral tear, and chondral lesion) can be identified. The question that remains is whether joint preservation procedures are able to avert the need for arthroplasty or just an intervention along the natural path of progression of the hip disease. There is an interesting study that followed 628 infants born in a Navajo reservation, including 8 infants with severe dysplasia, for 35 years. None of the children with DDH had surgical treatment and all had developed severe arthritis in the interim. The latter study and a few other natural history studies have shown that the lack of administration of surgical treatment to patients with symptomatic DDH results in accelerated arthritis. The situation is not so clear with FAI. Some believe that FAI is a pre-arthritic condition and surgical treatment is only effective in addressing the symptoms and does not delay or defer an arthroplasty. While others believe that restoration of the normal mechanical environment to the hip of FAI patients, by removing the abnormal contact and repair of the labrum, is likely to change the natural history of the disease and at minimum delay the need for an arthroplasty. There is a need for natural history studies or case series to settle the latter controversy

Hip joint preservation remains a preferred treatment option for hips with mechanically correctable pathologies prior to the development of significant secondary arthrosis. The pathologies most amenable to joint preservation are hip dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement. These pathologies sometimes overlap. Untreated acetabular dysplasia of modest severity always leads to arthrosis if uncorrected. Acetabular dysplasia is best treated by periacetabular osteotomy, usually combined with arthrotomy for management of labral pathology and associated cam-impingement if present. Pre-operative variables associated with the best long-term outcomes include less secondary arthrosis, younger age, and concentric articular surfaces. The earlier PAO series show 20 year survivorship of 81% and 65% in Tonnis Grade 0 and 1 hips. Femoroacetabular impingement has become progressively recognised as perhaps the most common cause of secondary arthrosis. The etiology of impingement is multifactorial and includes both genetic factors and stresses experienced by the hip prior to cessation of growth. Cam impingement can be quantified by the alpha angle as measured on plain radiographs and radial MR sequences. Cam impingement can be treated by arthroscopic or open femoral head-neck osteochondroplasty. As with hip dysplasia, prognosis following treatment is correlated with the severity of pre-operative secondary arthrosis but unfortunately impinging hips more commonly have some degree of arthrosis pre-operatively whereas dysplastic hips can become symptomatic with instability in the absence of arthrosis. The scientific basis for the treatment of pincer impingement is less strong. Unlike cam impingement and hip dysplasia, pincer impingement pathology in the absence of coxa profunda has not been correlated with arthrosis and so rim trimming with labral refixation is probably performed more often than is clinically indicated. Overall, joint preserving surgery remains the preferred treatment for hips with mechanically correctable problems prior to the development of significant secondary arthrosis

Hip joint preservation remains a preferred treatment option for hips with mechanically correctable pathologies prior to the development of significant secondary arthrosis. The pathologies most amenable to joint preservation are hip dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement. These pathologies sometimes overlap. Untreated acetabular dysplasia of modest severity always leads to arthrosis if uncorrected. Acetabular dysplasia is best treated by periacetabular osteotomy, usually combined with arthrotomy for management of labral pathology and associated cam-impingement if present. Preoperative variables associated with the best long-term outcomes include less secondary arthrosis, younger age, and concentric articular surfaces. Femoroacetabular impingement has become progressively recognised as perhaps the most common cause of secondary arthrosis. The etiology of impingement is multifactorial and includes both genetic factors and stresses experienced by the hip prior to cessation of growth. Cam impingement can be quantified by the alpha angle as measured on plain radiographs and radial MR sequences. Cam impingement can be treated by arthroscopic or open femoral head-neck osteochondroplasty. As with hip dysplasia, prognosis following treatment is correlated with the severity of preoperative secondary arthrosis but unfortunately impinging hips more commonly have some degree of arthrosis preop whereas dysplastic hips can become symptomic with instability in the absence of arthrosis. The scientific basis for the treatment of pincer impingement is less strong. Unlike cam impingement and hip dysplasia, pincer impingement pathology in the absence of coxa profunda has not been correlated with arthrosis and so rim trimming with labral refixation is probably performed more often than is clinically indicated. Overall, joint preserving surgery remains the preferred treatment for hips with mechanically correctible problems prior to the development of significant secondary arthrosis

Over the past fifteen years hip preservation surgery has rapidly evolved. Improved understanding of the pathomechanics and associated intra-articular degeneration of both hip instability and femoroacetabular impingement have led to improved surgical indications, refined surgical techniques and more effective joint preservation surgical procedures. The periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) was initially introduced by Ganz and colleagues and has become the preferred treatment in North America for pre-arthritic, symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. Both hip arthroscopy and safe surgical dislocation of the hip have been popularised for the treatment of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement disorders. Hip arthroscopy is effective for focal and\or accessible impingement lesions while the surgical dislocation approach is reserved for nonfocal disease patterns as seen in complex FAI, and residual Perthes and SCFE deformities. Femoroacetabular impingement from major acetabular retroversion can be managed with the PAO if there is coexistent posterosuperior acetabular insufficiency. Short- to mid-term results of these procedures are generally good to excellent for most patients and the complication rates associated with these procedures are very acceptable. Long-term outcomes are best known for the PAO. Several recent studies have documented survivorship rates of 65–90% at 10–20-year follow-up. Certain factors are associated with long-term success including minimal pre-operative radiographic OA, early symptoms, accurate acetabular correction, and younger age. These data strongly suggest that the PAO can defer THA to an older age for most patients while completely avoiding arthroplasty may only be possible in select patients with excellent congruency, no secondary OA and an ideal surgical correction

Surgical invention to preserve the native hip joint remains a preferred treatment option for hips in young patients with mechanically correctable pathologies prior to the development of significant secondary arthrosis. The two most common pathologies most amenable to joint preservation are hip dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement. These pathologies sometimes overlap. Untreated acetabular dysplasia of modest severity, if left uncorrected, always leads to arthrosis. Acetabular dysplasia is best treated by periacetabular osteotomy, usually combined with arthrotomy for management of labral pathology and associated cam-impingement, if present. Correction of deformities on the femoral side is now less common and reserved for only the more severe combined femoral and acetabular dysplasias or the rare isolated femoral dysplasia. Pre-operative variables associated with the best long-term outcomes include less secondary arthrosis, younger age, and concentric articular surfaces. Femoroacetabular impingement has become progressively recognised as perhaps the most common cause of secondary arthrosis. The etiology of impingement is multifactorial and includes both genetic factors and stresses experienced by the hip prior to cessation of growth. Cam impingement can be quantified by the alpha angle as measured on plain radiographs and radial MR sequences. Further, significant cam impingement is clearly associated with the development of osteoarthrosis. Treatment can be performed either by arthroscopic or open femoral head-neck osteochondroplasty. As with hip dysplasia, prognosis following treatment is correlated with the severity of pre-operative secondary arthrosis but unfortunately impinging hips more commonly have some degree of arthrosis pre-op whereas dysplastic hips can become symptomatic with the onset of instability in the absence of significant secondary arthrosis. The scientific basis for the treatment of pincer impingement is less strong. Unlike cam impingement and hip dysplasia, pincer impingement pathology in the absence of coxa profunda has not been correlated with arthrosis and so rim trimming with labral refixation is probably performed more often than is clinically indicated. Similarly, caution should be exercised when considering rim-trimming for protrusion since high central contact pressures due to an enlarged acetabular notch are not corrected by rim trimming. Overall, joint preserving surgery remains the preferred treatment for hips with mechanically correctable problems prior to the development of significant secondary arthrosis

Although cartilage repair has been around since the time of open Pridie drilling, clinical outcomes for newer techniques such as arthroscopic debridement, microfracture (MFX), osteochondral autograft transfers (OATS), osteochondral allograft transplantation and Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) are still finding their place in treating injured knees.

Early mechanical symptoms are best managed by a gentle arthroscopic debridement of loose articular flaps. This allows the surgeon to assess the defect size, location in the tibio-femoral or patellofemoral joint, status of the cartilage overall and patients response to the intervention. If the symptom improvement is not satisfactory to the patient, after assessing background factors that will influence the results of a cartilage repair procedure, (alignment of the patellofemoral joint or axial alignment, ligament stability and status of the meniscus), the surgeon can choose the best procedure for that individual based on the expected outcomes of the various cartilage repair techniques while addressing the background factors. As all the techniques have failures and informed discussion with the patient prior to performing the procedure is critical in avoiding disappointment for the patient and the surgeon.

The repair technique used should incorporate considerations of the defect size, location, and the patient age, activity level, expectations and ability to comply with the longer rehabilitation needed for biological procedures as compared to prosthetic implants.

The majority of patients who develop hip arthritis have a mechanical abnormality of the joint. The structural abnormalities range from instability (DDH) to impingement. Impingement leads to osteoarthritis by chronic damage to the acetabular labrum and adjacent cartilage.

In situations of endstage secondary DJD, hip arthroplasty is the most reliable treatment choice. In young patients with viable articular cartilage, joint salvage is indicated. Treatment should be directed at resolving the structural abnormalities that create the impingement.

Femoral abnormalities corrected by osteotomy or increased head-neck offset by chondro-osteoplasty creating a satisfactory head-neck offset. This can safely be done via anterior surgical dislocation or arthroscopically. The acetabular-labral lesions can be debrided and/or repaired. Acetabular abnormalities should be corrected by “reverse” PAO in those with acetabular retroversion or anterior acetabular debridement in those with satisfactory posterior coverage and a damaged anterior rim.

Often combinations of the above are indicated.

Cartilage is known to have limited intrinsic repair capabilities and cartilage defects can progress to osteoarthritis (OA). OA is a major economic burden of the 21st century, being among the leading causes of disability. The risk of disability from knee OA is as great as that derived from cardiovascular disease; a fact that becomes even more concerning when considering that even isolated cartilage defects can cause pain and disability comparable to that of severe OA.

Several cartilage repair procedures are in current clinical application, including microfracture, osteochondral autograft transfer, osteochondral allograft transplantation, and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). Given the economic challenges facing our health care system, it appears prudent to choose procedures that provide the most durable long-term outcome. Comparatively few studies have examined long-term outcomes, an important factor when considering the substantial differences in cost and morbidity among the various treatment options.

This study reviews the clinical outcomes of autologous chondrocyte implantation at a minimum of 10 years after treatment of chondral defects of the knee. Mean age at surgery was 36 ± 9 years; mean defect size measured 8.4 ± 5.5cm2. Outcome scores were prospectively collected pre- and postoperatively at the last follow up. We further analyzed potential factors contributing to failure in hopes of refining the indications for this procedure.

Conclusions: ACI provided durable outcomes with a survivorship of 71% at 10 years and improved function in 75% of patients with symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee at a minimum of 10 years after surgery. A history of prior marrow stimulation as well as the treatment of very large defects was associated with an increased risk of failure.

Introduction and Aims: The treatment of Giant Cell Tumor (GCT) of bone ranges from resection to intra-lesional excision. The latter procedure preserves the joint and function. The purpose of this paper is to review functional and oncological outcomes for GCT treated by intralesional excision.

Method: The medical records including radiology and pathology of 40 consecutive patients with GCT were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, complications, tumor local control were determined. Functional evaluation using the MSTS system was performed on 23 patients. The data was subject to statistical analysis.

Results: Forty patients (19M/21F). Mean age 28 years. Sites: femur 17, tibia 14, radius five, other four. Mean follow-up 90.3 months (26–178). Functional outcome: 93.2% (50–100). Complications: DJD two, fracture one. Recurrence: five (12.5%). Recurrence sites: Tibia two, femur one, radius one, and talus one. Recurrence treatment: 1/5 resection, 4/5 repeat intralesional excision. Recurrence outcome: 5/5 NED (mean 58.2 months).

Conclusion: GCT treated by intralesional excision had excellent functional and oncological outcomes. The joint was preserved in most patients (95%) except due to recurrence 1 and fracture 1. The recurrences were successfully treated by repeat excision in 4/5 patients. Intralesional excision should be considered the preferred treatment for most giant cell tumors.

Until today it is unknown whether preservation of the joint capsule positively affects patient reported outcome (PROs) in DAA-THA. A recent RCT found no clinical difference at 1 year. Since 2015 we preserve the capsule suture it at the end. We here evaluate whether this change had any effect on PROs and revisions, 2 years post-operatively.

Two subsequent cohorts operated by the senior author were compared. The capsule was resected in the first cohort (January 2012 – December 2014) and preserved in the second cohort (July 2015 – December 2017). No other technical changes have been introduced between the two cohorts. Patient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and surgical data were collected from our clinical information system. 2-years PROs questionnaires (OHS, COMI Hip) were obtained. Data was analyzed with generalized multiple regression analysis.

430 and 450 patients were included in the resected and preserved cohorts, respectively. Demographics, CCI surgical time and length of stay were equal in both groups. Blood loss was less in the preserved cohort (p<.05). Four patients had a revision (1 vs 3, n.s.). Once corrected for demographics, capsule preservation had significant worse PROs: +0.24 COMI (p<.001) and −1.6 OHS points (p<.05), however, effects were much smaller than the minimal clinically important difference (0.95 and 5 respectively). The date of surgery (i.e. surgeon's age) was not a significant factor.

In this large retrospective study, we observed statistically significant, but probably clinically not relevant, worse PROs with capsule preservation. It might be speculated that the not resected hypertrophied capsule could have caused this difference.

Aims

Joint-preserving surgery of the hip (JPSH) has evolved considerably and now includes a number of procedures, including arthroscopy, surgical dislocation, and redirectional osteotomies of the femur and acetabulum. There are a number of different factors which lead to failure of JPSH. Consequently, it is of interest to assess the various modes of failure in order to continue to identify best practice and the indications for these procedures.

The use of joint-preserving surgery of the hip has been largely abandoned since the introduction of total hip replacement. However, with the modification of such techniques as pelvic osteotomy, and the introduction of intracapsular procedures such as surgical hip dislocation and arthroscopy, previously unexpected options for the surgical treatment of sequelae of childhood conditions, including developmental dysplasia of the hip, slipped upper femoral epiphysis and Perthes’ disease, have become available. Moreover, femoroacetabular impingement has been identified as a significant aetiological factor in the development of osteoarthritis in many hips previously considered to suffer from primary osteoarthritis.

As mechanical causes of degenerative joint disease are now recognised earlier in the disease process, these techniques may be used to decelerate or even prevent progression to osteoarthritis. We review the recent development of these concepts and the associated surgical techniques.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:5–18.

Purpose

While changes in lower limb alignment and pelvic inclination after total hip arthroplasty (THA) using certain surgical approaches have been studied, the effect of preserving the joint capsule is still unclear. We retrospectively investigated changes in lower limb alignment, length and pelvic inclination before and after surgery, and the risk of postoperative dislocation in patients who underwent capsule preserving THA using the anterolateral-supine (ALS) approach.

No doubt that revision TKR is a challenging procedure. This procedure may be divided into three steps. First, a careful clinical examination is needed to assess range of motion, stiffness and possible difficulty in exposing and extracting the prosthesis. Second, an examination of joint stability is needed. Finally, radiographs should be evaluated for any bone deficiency that may require bone grafting or special prosthesis.

Exposure approaches may change in cases when second stage implantation is performed when an infected total knee replacement exists and when a cement spacer is used. In the cases when the cement spacer is left in place for a longer period of time, stiffness is much more prominent and therefore exposure may be even more difficult.

Subvastus and midvastus approaches are not suitable for this kind of revision. Usually in revision of total knee replacement or after cement spacer procedures, a larger exposure with the use of either snip incision, or osteotomy of the tibial tuberosity, or VY exposure is required. There are some cases where one can perform revision total knee without the extra exposure mentioned.

In revising total knee replacement, it is imperative that the joint line be restored to its original position. There are a few techniques that can be used to achieve this task by using a few landmarks. They include:

The residue of the menisci.

This can be done by comparing the other non-operated knee too.

The decision to which kind of prosthesis to use depends on the amount of bone loss and the injury to the surrounding structures and ligaments. One should be prepared for all options during surgery, in other words, using constrain or unconstraint prosthesis in the same patients. This depends solely on the findings during surgery.

In our hospital, we have used all the exposure approaches of the knee in revision surgery. We prefer the snip excision in the first stage, and if this is not sufficient then a tibial tuberosity osteotomy is preferred to the VY incision of the quadriceps mechanism. We found that using the meniscal residue is a very useful landmark for the joint line and we use it constantly.

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to determine the ten-year outcome following surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). We assessed whether the evolution of practice from open to arthroscopic techniques influenced outcomes and tested whether any patient, radiological, or surgical factors were associated with outcome. Methods. Prospectively collected data of a consecutive single-surgeon cohort, operated for FAI between January 2005 and January 2015, were retrospectively studied. The cohort comprised 393 hips (365 patients; 71% male (n = 278)), with a mean age of 34.5 years (SD 10.0). Over the study period, techniques evolved from open surgical dislocation (n = 94) to a combined arthroscopy-Hueter technique (HA + Hueter; n = 61) to a pure arthroscopic technique (HA; n = 238). Outcome measures of interest included modes of failures, complications, reoperation, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Demographic, radiological, and surgical factors were tested for possible association with outcome. Results. At a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (SD 2.5), there were 43 failures in 38 hips (9.7%), with 35 hips (8.9%) having one failure mode, one hip (0.25%) having two failure modes, and two hips (0.5%) having three failure modes. The five- and ten-year hip joint preservation rates were 94.1% (SD 1.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 91.8 to 96.4) and 90.4% (SD 1.7%; 95% CI 87.1 to 93.7), respectively. Inferior survivorship was detected in the surgical dislocation group. Age at surgery, Tönnis grade, cartilage damage, and absence of rim-trimming were associated with improved preservation rates. Only Tönnis grade was an independent predictor of hip preservation. All PROMs improved postoperatively. Factors associated with improvement in PROMs included higher lateral centre-edge and α angles, and lower retroversion index and BMI. Conclusion. FAI surgery provides lasting improvement in function and a joint preservation rate of 90.4% at ten years. The evolution of practice was not associated with inferior outcome. Since degree of arthritis is the primary predictor of outcome, improved awareness and screening may lead to prompt intervention and better outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):804–814

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate whether anterior pelvic plane-pelvic tilt (APP-PT) is associated with distinct hip pathomorphologies. We asked: is there a difference in APP-PT between young symptomatic patients being evaluated for joint preservation surgery and an asymptomatic control group? Does APP-PT vary among distinct acetabular and femoral pathomorphologies? And does APP-PT differ in symptomatic hips based on demographic factors?. Methods. This was an institutional review board-approved, single-centre, retrospective, case-control, comparative study, which included 388 symptomatic hips in 357 patients who presented to our tertiary centre for joint preservation between January 2011 and December 2015. Their mean age was 26 years (SD 2; 23 to 29) and 50% were female. They were allocated to 12 different morphological subgroups. The study group was compared with a control group of 20 asymptomatic hips in 20 patients. APP-PT was assessed in all patients based on supine anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using validated HipRecon software. Values in the two groups were compared using an independent-samples t-test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the influences of diagnoses and demographic factors on APP-PT. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for APP-PT was defined as > 1 SD. Results. There were no significant differences in APP-PT between the control group and the overall group (1.1° (SD 3.0°; -4.9° to 5.9°) vs 1.8° (SD 3.4°; -6.9° to 13.2°); p = 0.323). Acetabular retroversion and overcoverage groups showed higher mean APP-PTs compared with the control group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014) and were the only diagnoses with a significant influence on APP-PT in the stepwise multiple regression analysis. All differences were below the MCID. The age, sex, height, weight, and BMI showed no influence on APP-PT. Conclusion. APP-PT showed no radiologically significant variation across different pathomorphologies of the hip in patients being assessed for joint-preserving surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):3–10

Aims. We have previously reported cryoablation-assisted joint-sparing surgery for osteosarcoma with epiphyseal involvement. However, it is not clear whether this is a comparable alternative to conventional joint arthroplasty in terms of oncological and functional outcomes. Methods. A total of 22 patients who had localized osteosarcoma with epiphyseal involvement around the knee and underwent limb salvage surgery were allocated to joint preservation (JP) group and joint arthroplasty (JA) group. Subjects were followed with radiographs, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, and clinical evaluations at one, three, and five years postoperatively. Results. Patients in both groups (ten in JP and 12 in JA) did not differ in local recurrence (p ≥ 0.999) and occurrence of metastases (p ≥ 0.999). Overall survival was similar in both groups (p = 0.858). Patients in the JP group had less range of motion (ROM) of the knee (p < 0.001) and lower MSTS scores (p = 0.010) compared with those of the JA group only at one year postoperatively. There was no difference between groups either at three years for ROM (p = 0.185) and MSTS score (p = 0.678) or at five years for ROM (p = 0.687) and MSTS score (p = 0.536), postoperatively. Patients in the JA group tended to have more complications (p = 0.074). Survival of primary reconstruction in the JP group was better than that of the JA group (p = 0.030). Conclusion. Cryoablation-aided joint-sparing surgery offers native joint preservation with comparable functional recovery and more durable reconstruction without jeopardizing oncological outcomes compared with conventional limb salvage surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1421–1427

To investigate whether anterior pelvic plane-pelvic tilt (APP-PT) is associated with distinct hip pathomorphologies, we asked: (1) Is there a difference in APP-PT between symptomatic young patients eligible for joint preservation surgery and an asymptomatic control group? (2) Does APP-PT vary between distinct acetabular and femoral pathomorphologies? (3) Does APP-PT differ in symptomatic hips based on demographic factors?. IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective, case-control, comparative study in 388 symptomatic hips (357) patients (mean age 26 ± 2 years [range 23 to 29], 50% females) that presented to our tertiary center for joint preservation over a five year-period. Patients were allocated to 12 different morphologic subgroups. The overall study group was compared to a control group of 20 asymptomatic hips (20 patients). APP-PT was assessed in all patients based on AP pelvis X-rays using the validated HipRecon software. Values between overall and control group were compared using an independent samples t-test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the influences of diagnoses and demographic factors on APP-PT. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of APP-PT was defined as >1 standard deviation. No significant differences in APP-PT between the control group and overall group (1.1 ± 3.0° [−4.9 to 5.9] vs 1.8 ± 3.4° [−6.9 to 13.2], p = 0.323) were observed. Acetabular retroversion and overcoverage groups showed higher APP-PT compared to the control group (both p < 0.05) and were the only diagnoses with significant influence on APP-PT in the stepwise multiple regression analysis. However, all observed differences were below the MCID. Demographic factors age, gender, height, weight and BMI showed no influence on APP-PT. APP-PT across different hip pathomorphologies showed no clinically significant variation. It does not appear to be a relevant contributing factor in the evaluation of young patients eligible for hip preservation surgery

Aims. Implantation of ultra-purified alginate (UPAL) gel is safe and effective in animal osteochondral defect models. This study aimed to examine the applicability of UPAL gel implantation to acellular therapy in humans with cartilage injury. Methods. A total of 12 patients (12 knees) with symptomatic, post-traumatic, full-thickness cartilage lesions (1.0 to 4.0 cm. 2. ) were included in this study. UPAL gel was implanted into chondral defects after performing bone marrow stimulation technique, and assessed for up to three years postoperatively. The primary outcomes were the feasibility and safety of the procedure. The secondary outcomes were self-assessed clinical scores, arthroscopic scores, tissue biopsies, and MRI-based estimations. Results. No obvious adverse events related to UPAL gel implantation were observed. Self-assessed clinical scores, including pain, symptoms, activities of daily living, sports activity, and quality of life, were improved significantly at three years after surgery. Defect filling was confirmed using second-look arthroscopy at 72 weeks. Significantly improved MRI scores were observed from 12 to 144 weeks postoperatively. Histological examination of biopsy specimens obtained at 72 weeks after implantation revealed an extracellular matrix rich in glycosaminoglycan and type II collagen in the reparative tissue. Histological assessment yielded a mean overall International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society II score of 69.1 points (SD 10.4; 50 to 80). Conclusion. This study provides evidence supporting the safety of acellular UPAL gel implantation in facilitating cartilage repair. Despite being a single-arm study, it demonstrated the efficacy of UPAL gel implantation, suggesting it is an easy-to-use, one-step method of cartilage tissue repair circumventing the need to harvest donor cells. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):880–887