Arthroscopic microfracture vs. arthroscopic autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis for the treatment of articular cartilage defects of the talus.
Adult
Ankle Joint
/ surgery
Arthroplasty, Subchondral
/ methods
Arthroscopy
Cartilage, Articular
/ surgery
Chondrogenesis
Collagen Type I
/ chemistry
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Fractures, Stress
/ surgery
Humans
Intra-Articular Fractures
/ surgery
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Pain Measurement
Preoperative Period
Severity of Illness Index
Talus
/ surgery
Treatment Outcome
Visual Analog Scale
Young Adult
AMIC
Ankle arthroscopy
Cartilage repair
Microfracture
Osteochondral lesions of the talus
Journal
Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA
ISSN: 1433-7347
Titre abrégé: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9314730
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
15
08
2018
accepted:
29
10
2018
pubmed:
6
11
2018
medline:
28
11
2019
entrez:
5
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Microfracture is an established method to treat osteochondral defects of the talus. The value of the addition of an acellular matrix is still under debate. This study compared the results of arthroscopic microfracture vs. arthroscopic autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis using a collagen I/III matrix (AMIC) in the management of articular cartilage defects of the talus. Patients with a minimum follow-up of 5 years after arthroscopic management for an articular cartilage defect of the talus with either microfracture alone or an additional acellular matrix were matched according to age, sex and BMI. The Hannover Scoring System for the ankle (HSS) and a Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, function and satisfaction were used to evaluate the clinical outcome. Postoperative MRI was used to assess cartilage repair tissue based on the degree of defect repair and filling of the defect, integration to border zone, surface of the repair tissue, structure of the repair tissue, and subchondral bone alterations. Thirty-two patients (16 microfracture, 16 AMIC) were included. No significant between-group differences were observed in demographic data and preoperative score values. Both groups showed statistically significant improvement when comparing the pre- and postoperative score values. No statistically significant differences were identified between the median values of the groups with the HSS (microfracture: 82 (range 71-96) points; AMIC 88 (range 40-98) points). Accordingly, no significant differences were observed for the VAS pain (microfracture: 0.95 (range 0-3.8); AMIC: 1.0 (range 0-8.5)), VAS function (microfracture: 8.4 (range 3.5-10); AMIC: 9.0 (range 1.5-10)) and VAS satisfaction (microfracture: 8.9 (range 2.8-10); AMIC: 9.45 (range 1.5-10)). MRI showed regeneration of tissue in the treated area without differences between the two groups. Good clinical results were observed for arthroscopic microfracture with or without an additional acellular collagen I/III matrix in the treatment for articular cartilage defects of the talus. It appears that for defects as treated in this study, it is not worthwhile adding the collagen I/III matrix to the microfractures. III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30392029
doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5278-7
pii: 10.1007/s00167-018-5278-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Collagen Type I
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2731-2736Références
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Aug;23(8):2406-2412
pubmed: 24562698
Radiol Med. 2017 Dec;122(12):909-917
pubmed: 28770483
Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Aug;26(8):583-9
pubmed: 16115412
Arthroscopy. 2008 Jan;24(1):106-12
pubmed: 18182210
Clin J Sport Med. 2019 Nov;29(6):470-475
pubmed: 31688177
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Mar;31(3):732-9
pubmed: 20187220
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Mar;46(3):642-648
pubmed: 29144772
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jun 5;95(11):1045-54
pubmed: 23780543
Foot Ankle Int. 2001 Jul;22(7):552-8
pubmed: 11503979
Foot Ankle Spec. 2014 Dec;7(6):522-8
pubmed: 25037954
Foot Ankle Int. 2003 Apr;24(4):317-20
pubmed: 12735373
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Mar;26(3):875-881
pubmed: 27620469
Foot Ankle Int. 2018 Jul;39(1_suppl):41S-47S
pubmed: 30215312
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Feb;88(2):303-8
pubmed: 16452741
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Apr;24(4):1299-303
pubmed: 26831855
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Sep - Oct;56(5):930-936
pubmed: 28647522
Arthrosc Tech. 2015 Jun 08;4(3):e255-9
pubmed: 26258040
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1959 Sep;41-A:988-1020
pubmed: 13849029
Foot Ankle Int. 2017 May;38(5):485-495
pubmed: 28076977
Foot Ankle Surg. 2018 Jun;24(3):229-235
pubmed: 29409254
Eur J Radiol. 2004 Dec;52(3):310-9
pubmed: 15544911
Cartilage. 2017 Jan;8(1):19-30
pubmed: 27994717
Arthroscopy. 2016 Jan;32(1):214-22.e1
pubmed: 26372522
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Jul 18;18(1):306
pubmed: 28720091
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Mar;41(3):519-27
pubmed: 23393079
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):392-404
pubmed: 19561175
Orthopedics. 2011 Aug 08;34(8):e356-62
pubmed: 21815576
World J Orthop. 2017 Jul 18;8(7):588-601
pubmed: 28808630
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jun;45(7):1698-1705
pubmed: 27852595
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Mar;40(3):534-41
pubmed: 22253252
World J Orthop. 2017 Oct 18;8(10):798-808
pubmed: 29094011
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Oct;37(10):1974-80
pubmed: 19654429
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 May;18(5):656-63
pubmed: 20130840
Foot Ankle Clin. 2013 Mar;18(1):151-8
pubmed: 23465954