Book Paid Powai Call Girls Mumbai 𖠋 9930245274 𖠋Low Budget Full Independent H...
BioPoly - ISAKOS Cartilage Symposium - Shanghai June 2017
1. Prof. Vladimir Bobić
MD FRCSEd, Consultant Orthopaedic Knee Surgeon
Chester Knee Clinic at Nuffield Health, The Grosvenor Hospital Chester, United Kingdom
www.kneeclinic.info office@kneeclinic.info @ChesterKnee
BioPoly®RS Knee System
The partial resurfacing implant
1
2. Relevant Disclosures
1: Royalties received from Schwartz Biomedical
3b: Paid Consultant for intellectual property (implant
and instrument design), Schwartz Biomedical
2
3. Mr Mike McNicholas
BSc, MD, FRCSEd(Tr&Orth), FFSEM RSCI
Consultant, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool
Hon Prof, Directorate of Sport, University of Salford
Hon Senior Lecturer, Department of Musculoskeletal Biology, University of Liverpool
BioPoly®
RS Knee System
The partial resurfacing implant
Cardiff, 3rd February 2017
3
@BioKneeSociety
13. BioPoly - Deformed shape at 1000N
(note larger area of tibial cartilage engaged in load sharing)
13
14. Results in lower opposing cartilage contact pressure
(2.5x body weight load)
BioPoly
Tibial Cartilage
Contact Pressure
Peak = 3.46 MPa
Active Contact Zone
Loaded Area ~ 471
mm2
Metal Implant
Tibial Cartilage
Contact Pressure
Peak = 7.24 MPa
Active Contact Zone
Loaded Area ~ 314 mm2
14
15. ®Confidential
BioPoly RS Knee and Patella System
• CE Marked
• Suitable for cartilage defects in the distal
femur and patella up to 3.1 cm2
• Femoral Condyle and Trochlear Facet
Implants
– Ti64 grit blasted stems. Press fit or cemented
• Patella implants
– All BioPoly construction for cementation
• Simple surgical instrument set and
technique
• Existing reimbursement codes
Femoral Condyles and
Trochlear Facets
Patella
15mm 20mm 15x24mm
15mm/0 15mm/1 20mm/0 20mm/1
15
37. Current BioPoly® RS Partial Resurfacing
3 Families of Products
BioPoly® RS KNEE
CE Marked
BioPoly® RS PATELLA
CE Marked
BioPoly® RS SHOULDER
CE Marked
Patella
Humeral
head
Distal Femur
37
+ BioPoly® RS Femoral Trochlea and Talar Dome in the pipeline
39. BioPoly® RS Partial Resurfacing Knee System
Typical Resurfacing Patient
▪ 21+ year old active adult
▪ Knee pain
▪ Too young for TKR
▪ Often failed Debridement, Microfracture,
OATS or ACI
▪ Patients wanting to regain active lifestyle
▪ Focal defects
▪ Femoral condyles
39
45. Study Investigators and Collaborators:
Prof Vladimir Bobic - Chester Knee Clinic, Chester, UK
Prof Mike McNicholas – Aintree, Liverpool, UK
Mr Dinesh Nathwani - Imperial College, London, UK
Prof Alister Hart - RNOH Stanmore, London, UK
Mr Jonathan Miles - RNOH Stanmore, London, UK
Matt Hill - Schwartz Biomedical, USA
Herb Schwartz - Schwartz Biomedical, USA
45
46. Registry Study Design
• Study Type: Post-market registry
• 35 patients & 4 UK Centres
• Control: Historical microfracture outcomes
• Outcome measures: KOOS, VAS, Tegner, SF-36
46
Major Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
• Age 21 years and older • Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥ 30
• Symptomatic lesions classified as ICRS grade 2, 3, or 4 • Generalized degenerative or autoimmune arthritis
• Lesion size ≤ 3.1cm2 circumscribed by normal or nearly normal
(ICRS grade 0 or 1) cartilage with an overall depth ≤ 4mm
from the articulating surface
• Uncorrected chronic malalignment of the knee*
• Uncorrected ligamentous instability*
• Uncorrected mechanically symptomatic meniscal tear or
total meniscectomy*
• Sufficient subchondral bone quality to support implant • Kissing lesion on tibia
• More than one implant required to accommodate lesion
• Use with opposing articulating tibial components
*Can be corrected during surgery
48. Registry Study Results
• Interim results after 2
years indicate:
– Significant improvement in
all clinical outcomes
– One revision (2.9%) due to
subchondral bone disorder
– No differences between
younger and older patients
• Mean Defect size = 2.7cm2
• Over half of patient population (54.3%) failed previous
cartilage repair procedures
48
50. Failed BioPoly Implant
• Why? No structural or technical problems identified. No infection. Patient selection? Surgical technique?
• Very difficult to remove! Revised successfully with deep subchondral drilling + ChondroTissue patch.
• Possible reasons: inadequate osseous support (previous microfractures + failed MACI = failure of implant
to bone integration)
50
51. Patient Adverse Events
• 1 Wound infection reported after 1/12
– Resolved quickly with medication
• 1 Patient began experiencing pain at 3/12
– Arthroscopy revealed implant intact, and loose
cartilage body as source of pain
– Removal of loose cartilage body resolved
2symptoms
51
52. Registry Study Results
• BioPoly compared to historical microfracture outcomes
– BioPoly patients on average 7 – 9 years older
• Significantly superior KOOS QoL and Sport after 2 years
52