Midterm Outcomes of Bone Marrow Stimulation for Primary Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus: A Systematic Review.
bone marrow stimulation
osteochondral
systematic review
talus
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
entrez:
8
11
2019
pubmed:
7
11
2019
medline:
7
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) is a common surgical intervention in the treatment of small osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs). Evidence has shown good clinical outcomes after BMS in the short term, but several studies have shown less favorable results at midterm and long-term follow-up because of fibrocartilaginous repair tissue degeneration. To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of BMS in the treatment of primary OLTs at midterm and long-term follow-up and to investigate reported data in these studies. Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical and radiological outcomes as well as reported data were evaluated. A total of 15 studies comprising 853 patients (858 ankles) were included at a weighted mean follow-up time of 71.9 months. There were 9 studies that used the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, with a weighted mean postoperative score of 89.9. There were 3 studies that measured postoperative magnetic resonance imaging results in the midterm using the MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) scoring system and showed 48% of patients with complete filling, 74% with complete integration, and 76% with surface damage. There was a complication rate of 3.4% and a reoperation rate of 6.0% after BMS in the midterm. This systematic review found good clinical outcomes after BMS at midterm follow-up for primary OLTs. Radiological outcomes showed repair tissue surface damage in the majority of patients, which may be a harbinger for long-term problems. Data were variable, and numerous data were underreported. Further high-quality studies, a validated outcome scoring system, and further radiological reports at midterm follow-up are required to accurately assess the success of BMS in the midterm.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) is a common surgical intervention in the treatment of small osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs). Evidence has shown good clinical outcomes after BMS in the short term, but several studies have shown less favorable results at midterm and long-term follow-up because of fibrocartilaginous repair tissue degeneration.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of BMS in the treatment of primary OLTs at midterm and long-term follow-up and to investigate reported data in these studies.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical and radiological outcomes as well as reported data were evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies comprising 853 patients (858 ankles) were included at a weighted mean follow-up time of 71.9 months. There were 9 studies that used the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, with a weighted mean postoperative score of 89.9. There were 3 studies that measured postoperative magnetic resonance imaging results in the midterm using the MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) scoring system and showed 48% of patients with complete filling, 74% with complete integration, and 76% with surface damage. There was a complication rate of 3.4% and a reoperation rate of 6.0% after BMS in the midterm.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found good clinical outcomes after BMS at midterm follow-up for primary OLTs. Radiological outcomes showed repair tissue surface damage in the majority of patients, which may be a harbinger for long-term problems. Data were variable, and numerous data were underreported. Further high-quality studies, a validated outcome scoring system, and further radiological reports at midterm follow-up are required to accurately assess the success of BMS in the midterm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31696137
doi: 10.1177/2325967119879127
pii: 10.1177_2325967119879127
pmc: PMC6822192
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967119879127Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: J.G.K. has received consulting fees from Arteriocyte Medical Systems and Isto Biologics. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Apr;24(4):1299-303
pubmed: 26831855
Arthroscopy. 2013 Aug;29(8):1399-409
pubmed: 23669235
Eur J Radiol. 2006 Jan;57(1):16-23
pubmed: 16203119
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Jun;86(6):1336
pubmed: 15173311
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1994 Jul;2(4):192-201
pubmed: 10709009
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):782-90
pubmed: 20139326
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000 Feb;10(1):2-11
pubmed: 10693606
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Aug;23(8):2406-2412
pubmed: 24562698
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Nov;123(9):447-50
pubmed: 12838438
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Mar;79(2):280-4
pubmed: 9119857
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Jul;26(7):2142-2157
pubmed: 28656457
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 Jan;77(1):50-4
pubmed: 7822395
Arthroscopy. 2008 Jan;24(1):106-12
pubmed: 18182210
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):W65-94
pubmed: 19622512
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Nov;86(8):1093-9
pubmed: 15568518
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Feb;18(2):238-46
pubmed: 19859695
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Mar;46(3):642-648
pubmed: 29144772
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Oct;26(10):3055-3062
pubmed: 29572556
Ann Rheum Dis. 1957 Dec;16(4):494-502
pubmed: 13498604
Cartilage. 2019 Jan;10(1):70-81
pubmed: 28573889
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Mar 20;95(6):519-25
pubmed: 23515986
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Jan 7;97(1):1-2
pubmed: 25568387
Arthroscopy. 2016 Feb;32(2):339-47
pubmed: 26395409
Arthroscopy. 2003 Apr;19(4):360-7
pubmed: 12671618
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Mar;64(3):460-6
pubmed: 6174527
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Mar;41(3):689-95
pubmed: 22967827
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Mar;41(3):504-10
pubmed: 23354117
Arthroscopy. 1999 Nov-Dec;15(8):805-8
pubmed: 10564856
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Aug;23(8):2384-2389
pubmed: 24292979
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Nov;37 Suppl 1:63S-70S
pubmed: 19843658
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Aug 18;92(10):1927-37
pubmed: 20720135
Arthroscopy. 1999 Mar;15(2):197-202
pubmed: 10210079
Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(12):i-iv, 1-98
pubmed: 10374081
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Aug;43(8):1951-6
pubmed: 25989800
Bone Joint J. 2014 Feb;96-B(2):164-71
pubmed: 24493179
Cartilage. 2011 Jan;2(1):73-80
pubmed: 26069571
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Sep;36(9):1750-62
pubmed: 18753679
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jun;45(7):1698-1705
pubmed: 27852595
Lancet. 1998 Aug 22;352(9128):609-13
pubmed: 9746022
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Oct;35(10):1680-7
pubmed: 17656737
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Oct;37(10):1974-80
pubmed: 19654429
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Apr;24(4):1286-92
pubmed: 26713327
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Sep;81(9):1229-35
pubmed: 10505519
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 May;18(5):656-63
pubmed: 20130840