Operative Treatment of Chondral Defects in the Glenohumeral Joint

Purpose: The objectives of this study were to conduct a systematic review of clinical outcomes after cartilage restorative and reparative procedures in the glenohumeral joint, to identify prognostic factors that predict clinical outcomes, to provide treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence, and to highlight literature gaps that require future research. Methods: We searched Medline (1948 to week 1 of February 2012) and Embase (1980 to week 5 of 2012) for studies evaluating the results of arthroscopic debridement, microfracture, osteochondral autograft or allograft transplants, and autologous chondrocyte implantation for glenohumeral chondral lesions. Other inclusion criteria included minimum 8 months' follow-up. The Oxford Level of Evidence Guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendations were used to rate the quality of evidence and to make treatment recommendations. Results: Twelve articles met our inclusion criteria, which resulted in a total of 315 patients. Six articles pertained to arthroscopic debridement (n = 249), 3 to microfracture (n = 47), 2 to osteochondral autograft transplantation (n = 15), and 1 to autologous chondrocyte implantation (n = 5). Whereas most studies reported favorable results, sample heterogeneity and differences in the use of functional and radiographic outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. Several positive and negative prognostic factors were identified. All of the eligible studies were observational, retrospective case series without control groups; the quality of evidence available for the use of the aforementioned procedures is considered "very low" and "any estimate of effect is very uncertain." Conclusions: More research is necessary to determine which treatment for chondral pathology in the shoulder provides the best long-term outcomes. We encourage centers to establish the necessary alliances to conduct blinded, randomized clinical trials and prospective, comparative cohort studies necessary to rigorously determine which treatments result in the most optimal outcomes. At this time, high-quality evidence is lacking to make strong recommendations, and decision making in this patient population is performed on a case-by-case basis. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.