KNEE OSTEONECROSIS: A CASE SERIES WITH SIX-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

Introduction Osteonecrosis of the knee encompasses three conditions; spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee, secondary osteonecrosis (ON) and post-arthroscopic ON. Early stage lesions can be managed by non-operative measures that include protected weight-bearing and analgesia. The aim of this study was to report the experience of the authors in managing early stages of knee ON by analysing the functional outcome and need for surgical intervention. Methods All patients treated for osteonecrosis of the knee between 1st August 2001 and 1st April 2014 were prospectively collected. Treatment consisted of touch-down weight bearing for four to six weeks. The cases were retrospectively reviewed. MR imaging was evaluated for the stage of disease according to Koshino9s Classification system, the condyles involved and the time taken for resolution. Tegner Activity Scale, VAS pain, Lysholm, WOMAC and IKDC scores were recorded at presentation and final follow up. Results 51 cases were treated for knee ON at our centre; 40 cases of SONK, seven secondary ON and four post-arthroscopic ON. Of the seven cases of secondary osteonecrosis; 5 were secondary to self-reported high ethanol intake and two secondary to corticosteroid treatment. The mean age of the group was 56.9 years and 68.7% were male. The medial femoral condyle was the most commonly affected (54.9%). 86% reported resolution of clinical symptoms and a statistically significant improvement was reported in all functional outcome measures. Four patients required total knee arthroplasty; three in the post-arthroscopic group within 15 months and one following ON secondary to corticosteroids performed at 5 months. Conclusion Early stage spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee can be managed successfully without surgery if diagnosed early. Although secondary and post-arthroscopic ON seem to be more resistant. Larger studies are required to confirm or refute this. Level of Evidence IV – a case series Conflict of Interests The authors confirm that they have no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Ethical approval was not sought as this was a systematic review