BACKGROUND: Osteochondral lesions of the talus are common in patients suffering even minor trauma; timely diagnosis and treatment can prevent the development of early osteoarthritis. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to evaluate the effects of additional procedures on arthroscopic ankle microperforations for osteochondral lesions.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed-Medline, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar to select clinical studies analyzing the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), and bone marrow concentrate (BMC) procedures. Ten articles following PRISMA guidelines with a total of 464 patients were included in this review. Quality assessment using MINORS was performed, and all studies demonstrated high quality.
RESULTS: The results of the systematic review showed benefits in all patients undergoing infiltrative therapy with PRP, hyaluronic acid, and BMC. The best results in terms of AOFAS score and VAS scale were found in patients undergoing PRP injection. The meta-analysis showed improvements in pain relief and return to daily activities in patients undergoing arthroscopic microperforations and PRP, although not reporting statistically significant results (p = 0.42).
CONCLUSIONS: All treatment strategies reported better scores compared to the control groups. Among the various treatments analyzed, the addition of PRP appears to be the most valuable probably for the larger population receiving this treatment, showing excellent outcomes in pain reduction, clinical outcomes, and return to daily activities.
METHODS: II.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review outcomes of joint preservation procedures for chondral lesions of the hip through analysis of survival rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
METHODS: A literature search from 2018 to May 2023 was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in 3 databases: PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they reported on outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of chondral lesions of the hip joint and if there were quantifiable postoperative outcome measures. Quality assessment was completed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included, with 20 noncomparative and 7 comparative studies. Microfracture (MFx) was the most common procedure, reported in 17 studies. Other procedures include autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT) (5 studies), autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) (3 studies), and MFx in conjunction with CarGel (3 studies). Seven other novel procedures were reported in individual separate studies. Survival rates, defined by no revision surgery or conversion to total hip arthroscopy (THA) at latest follow-up, for MFx (14 studies), AMIC (3 studies), and MFx in conjunction with CarGel (3 studies) ranged from 59.1% to 100%, 92.9% to 100%, and 94.4% to 95.7%, respectively. Survival rates of ACT, biological reconstruction, debridement and abrasion, microfragmented autologous adipose tissue transplantation, and ChondroFiller gel were all reported once in separate studies with rates of 100%, 100%, 85.4%, 100%, and 92.3%, respectively. All studies included PROs, most reporting statistically significant improvements (P < .05) at the latest follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Isolated MFx remained the most commonly performed technique, but with lower survival and higher conversion to THA rates than in studies before 2018. Novel techniques that were performed in conjunction with MFx or that avoided MFx altogether had higher overall survival rates despite being minimally performed. Most patients across all techniques demonstrated significant improvements in PROs.
METHODS: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

暂无摘要。

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety between the microfracture (MFx) and augmented microfracture (MFx+) techniques for articular cartilage defects of the talus (OLTs). PubMed and EMBASE were searched from January 1950 to October 2020. Only randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies (retrospective and prospective) applying MFx and MFx+ techniques to treat talar cartilage defects were selected. Ten trials with 492 patients were included. There was significant difference in final American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score (AOFAS) (mean difference [MD] = 7.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.70-10.44; p < .01), AOFAS change (MD = 7.97; 95% CI, 4.27-11.66; p < .01), visual analog scale (VAS) change score (MD = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29-0.59; p < .01), Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score (MD = 12.51; 95% CI, 7.16-17.86; p < .01), complication (RR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.69; p < .01), and revision (Relative risk = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.77; p < .05), between the MFx and MFx+ groups. No significant difference was observed for final VAS pain score (MD = -0.53; 95% CI, -1.2 to 1.05; p = .13) and Tegner scale (MD = 0.31; 95% CI, -1.05 to 1.66; p = .66) in either group. Our results suggest that augmented microfracture is superior to microfracture alone in the treatment of talar OLTs based on the AOFAS, MOCART, VAS score, complication rate, and revision ratio. Therefore, microfracture with augmentation should be considered as a treatment for OLTs of talus. However, more randomized trials are still required to determine the long-term superiority of MFx+.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the most used scales in the assessment of the clinical outcomes for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE databases from September 1999 to September 2019, based on the guidelines established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The research strategy was: osteochondral [All Fields], AND (\"talus\" [MeSH Terms] OR \"talus\" [All Fields]) AND lesion [All Fields]. Of the 364 articles found in the literature, 166 (45%) were included in the study and 198 (55%) excluded. In total, 23 clinical assessment tools were used in the studies.
RESULTS: We found 49.4% of the studies to use the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale) and 29.5% the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of AOFAS increased in relation to VAS in the last 6 years (p = 0.046), and these two scales, either alone or combined, were the most used for studying osteochondral lesions of the talus. Level of Evidence III, Systematic Review of Level II studies.
OBJECTIVE: Este estudo propõe revisar sistematicamente a literatura para identificar as escalas mais utilizadas da avaliação clínica de resultados do tratamento das LOTs.
UNASSIGNED: Foi realizada revisão sistemática das bases de dados do PubMed/MEDLINE, desde setembro de 1999 a setembro 2019 baseado nas diretrizes PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). A estratégia de pesquisa foi: osteochondral [All Fields], AND (“talus” [MeSH Terms] OR “talus” [All Fields]) AND lesion [All Fields]. De 364 artigos, foram incluídos no estudo 166 (45%) e excluídos 198 (55%). Foram observadas 23 escalas de avaliação clínica utilizadas.
RESULTS: A escala AOFAS e EVA de dor foram as mais utilizadas, ocorrendo em 49,4% e 29,5% dos artigos, respectivamente. Foi observado aumento de uso de AOFAS e diminuição EVA nos últimos 6 anos (p = 0,046).
UNASSIGNED: As ferramentas Escala AOFAS e EVA para dor demonstraram ser as mais usadas na literatura para avaliação de resultados do tratamento da lesão osteocondral de tálus, tanto isoladamente, quanto combinadas. Nível de Evidência III, Revisão Sistemática de Estudos de Nível II.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to identify the available evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and safety of various operative treatments in adult patients with osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT).
METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception date to September 2019. Two reviewers selected the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs assessing the comparative effectiveness and safety of various operative treatments for OLT. The meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3.
RESULTS: Eight studies (1 RCT and 7 non-RCTs) with 375 patients were included in this review. The difference in the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score between the cartilage repair and replacement was not significant. The cartilage regeneration with or without cartilage repair had significant superiority in improving the AOFAS score compared with the cartilage repair. The difference in the magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score between the cartilage repair and replacement and between cartilage repair and cartilage repair plus regeneration was significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Cartilage regeneration and cartilage repair plus regeneration had significant superiority in improving the ankle function and radiological evaluation of OLT, although the trials included did not have high-level evidence. Moreover, which treatment between the 2 was safer could not be addressed in this review as most of the trials did not report the safety outcome. Further studies are needed to define the best surgical option for treating OLT.

BACKGROUND: There has been no consensus regarding the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus, there has been many attempts to formulate a treatment pathway, with multiple proposed modalities and adjuncts used.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to investigate the evidence published in the recent history, identify the relevant papers, review and summarize the findings, to help clarify the available operative treatment options and their respective efficacies based on the level of evidence provided.
METHODS: A literature search through electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE was done, these databases were screened for publications and papers form June 2004 to June 2019. Key words were utilised in the search \'talus, talar, tibia, cartilage, osteochondral, ankle, osteochondritis dissecans, articular cartilage\'. Studies on adults aged 18-60 years were included. Exclusion criteria were studies with less than 10 patients, or no clear outcome was recorded. Papers were reviewed by the authors and data extracted as per a pre-defined proforma.
RESULTS: Following screening, 28 published articles were included and reviewed. Of these publications 5 were level I, 7 level II, 4 level III and 12 level IV. The total number of patients was 1061 patients. Treatment modalities included arthroscopic microfracture, drilling, hyaluronic acid injection, platelet rich plasma, osteochondral autologous transplantation (OAT), vascularised free bone graft among others. The most common functional measures used to assess efficacy were the Visual analogue scale (VAS) and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle (AOFAS) score. Follow up ranged from 26 weeks upto 4 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the abundance of treatment options, high level evidence (level I) remains limited and does not conclude a definitive treatment modality as superior to others. Further research, in the form highly organised randomised clinical trials, is needed to help improve the efficacy and develop new treatment modalities in the future.

The return to play outcome is an important measure for orthopaedic sports medicine treatments. This variable is especially important when discussing cartilage treatments because there are many different cartilage options available to athletes with articular injuries and this population is particularly interested in the ability to return to activities. Although many outcome variables are considered in any surgical procedure, the return-to-sport variable is focused on an active population and can be tailored to that patient\'s sport-specific goals. In this article, we will review some of the most recent and up-to-date articles describing return-to-sport outcomes for various knee cartilage treatments. This article will focus on the most common current knee cartilage treatments including microfracture, autologous chondrocyte implantation, osteochondral autograft transplant, and osteochondral allograft transplantation.

UNASSIGNED: A strict rehabilitation protocol is traditionally followed after microfracture, including weightbearing restrictions for 2 to 6 weeks. However, such restrictions pose significant disability, especially in a patient population that is younger and more active.
UNASSIGNED: An extensive literature review was performed through PubMed and Google Scholar of all studies through December 2018 related to microfracture, including biomechanical, basic science, and clinical studies. For inclusion, clinical studies had to report weightbearing status and outcomes with a minimum 12-month follow-up.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical review.
UNASSIGNED: Level 3.
UNASSIGNED: Review of biomechanical and biology studies suggest new forming repair tissue is protected from shear forces of knee joint loading by the cartilaginous margins of the defect. This margin acts as a shoulder to maintain axial height and allow for tissue remodeling up to at least 12 months after surgery, well beyond current weight bearing restriction trends. A retrospective case-control study showed that weightbearing status postoperatively had no effect on clinical outcomes in patients who underwent microfracture for small chondral (<2 mm2) defects. In fact, 1 survey showed that many orthopaedic surgeons currently do not restrict weightbearing after microfracture.
UNASSIGNED: This clinical literature review suggests that weightbearing restrictions may not be required after microfracture for isolated tibiofemoral chondral lesions of the knee.
UNASSIGNED: C.

BACKGROUND: Despite the optimization of biomechanical and patient factors in the setting of rotator cuff repair (RCR), postoperative retear rates remain high in many series reported in the literature. Preclinical studies have suggested bone marrow stimulation (BMS) at the rotator cuff footprint may reduce the rate of retear after RCR. The objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical evidence investigating the effect of arthroscopic RCR, with and without BMS, on rotator cuff healing and functional outcomes.
METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through December 2017. Two reviewers selected studies based on the inclusion criteria and assessed methodologic quality. Pooled analyses were performed for continuous and binomial variables where appropriate.
RESULTS: Four studies (365 patients), including 2 Level I randomized controlled trials and 2 Level III retrospective comparative cohort studies were included. There was no statistical difference in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, University of California Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale score, or the Constant score between the BMS and conventional repair groups. The pooled retear rates were 18.4% (28 of 152) and 31.8% (56 of 176) for patients treated with and without BMS, respectively. The pooled analysis of rotator cuff retear rates from the 4 studies (328 patients) showed a statistically significant difference favoring BMS over conventional repair (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.73; P = .002; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: BMS reduces the retear rate after RCR but shows no difference in functional outcomes compared with conventional repair. This study provides evidence for the use of BMS as a potential cost-effective biological approach toward improving rotator cuff healing.