| Literature DB >> 28656457 |
Jari Dahmen1,2,3, Kaj T A Lambers1,2,3, Mikel L Reilingh1,2,3, Christiaan J A van Bergen1,2,3,4, Sjoerd A S Stufkens1,2,3, Gino M M J Kerkhoffs5,6,7.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic literature review is to detect the most effective treatment option for primary talar osteochondral defects in adults.Entities:
Keywords: Ankle; Arthroscopy; Articular cartilage; Defect; Osteochondral lesion; Success rate; Systematic review; Talus
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28656457 PMCID: PMC6061466 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4616-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc ISSN: 0942-2056 Impact factor: 4.342
Exclusion criteria
| Exclusion criteria | No. of studies |
|---|---|
| Non-primary OCDs | 91 |
| <5 patients | 20 |
| Age: <18 years old | 17 |
| Patient overlap | 14 |
| Treatment inappropriately described | 13 |
| Combination of diagnoses (bipolar, fracture, etc.) | 13 |
| Combination of treatment groups and/or no separate data per group | 8 |
| Follow-up <6 months | 2 |
| Interpretable data not available | 2 |
| Asymptomatic lesion | 1 |
| Total no. of excluded studies | 181 |
Some publications were excluded due to a combination of reasons
Fig. 1Literature selection algorithm—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA)
Fig. 2Flow chart of study inclusion and treatment of talar OCDs between 1996 and 2017. ACI autologous chondrocyte implantation, ACIC autologous collagen-induced chondrogenesis, AMIC autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, RD retrograde drilling, BMS bone marrow stimulation, MACI matrix-associated chondrocyte implantation, OATS osteochondral autograft transfer system, HA hyaluronic acid, PEMF pulsed electromagnetic fields, ECD endoscopic core decompression
Clinical scoring systems utilised for treatment of talar OCDs and associated knee scores in case of implantation techniques
| Clinical scoring system | No. of studies |
|---|---|
| AOFAS Ankle/Hindfoot Scale [ | 43 |
| VAS (Visual Analog Scale) [ | 27 |
| Patient Satisfaction Score | 17 |
| Tegner score [ | 3 |
| Short Form-36 [ | 4 |
| Hannover score [ | 3 |
| Freiburg Ankle Score [ | 3 |
| Criteria proposed by Berndt and Harty [ | 3 |
| Ogilvie Harris Score [ | 3 |
| Ankle Activity Score [ | 2 |
| Modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System [ | 2 |
| Hospital of Special Surgery Patella Score [ | 2 |
| IKDC Subjective and Objective Knee Evaluation Form [ | 2 |
| Clinical evaluation proposed by Shearer and Loomer [ | 1 |
| RTA (Return to Activity) [ | 1 |
| NRS (Numeric Rating Scale for pain and satisfaction) [ | 1 |
| Saxena criteria [ | 1 |
| FAAM (Foot and Ankle Ability Measure) [ | 1 |
| McCullough Score [ | 1 |
| Foot Functioning Index [ | 1 |
| MODEMS AAOS Foot and Ankle Follow-up Questionnaire [ | 1 |
| Modified Cincinnati Knee Documentation Rating [ | 1 |
| Bandi Knee Global Assessment Score [ | 1 |
| Lysholm [ | 1 |
| Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI) [ | 1 |
Some studies utilised >1 scoring system
Classification systems utilised for osteochondral damage staging assessment
| Classification systems | No. of studies |
|---|---|
| Berndt and Harty Classification System [ | 16 |
| MOCART [ | 8 |
| International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) [ | 8 |
| Hepple et al. [ | 5 |
| Ferkel and Cheng [ | 3 |
| Anderson et al. [ | 3 |
| Dipaola et al. [ | 3 |
| Outerbridge Classification System [ | 2 |
| Bristol Classification System [ | 2 |
| Osteoarthritis Classification System [ | 1 |
| Sefton Articular Stability Scale [ | 1 |
| Pritsch Classification System [ | 1 |
| FOC (Fracture, Osteonecrosis, Cyst) [ | 1 |
| Takakura Radiologic Arthrosis Classification System [ | 1 |
| Giannini Classification System [ | 1 |
| Scranton and McDermott Classification System [ | 1 |
| Mintz et al. [ | 1 |
| Guhl [ | 1 |
Some studies utilised >1 classification system, and others did not utilise a classification system
Table presenting the separate results of the adjusted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale
| Category in question | Number of stars | Maximum number of stars | Proportion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Study design | 65 | 104 | 65/104 = 63% |
| Selection | 43 | 52 | 43/52 = 83% |
| Outcome | 74 | 104 | 74/104 = 71% |
| Total | 182 | 260 | 182/260 = 70% |
Fig. 3Forest plot of all included studies with the success rates and the corresponding 95% confidence interval per separate study (sorted on treatment strategy group, methodological quality and alphabetical order accompanied by number of ankles and mean follow-up duration; the size of the diamond representing the success rate is adjusted for the number of ankles included in the publications)
Fig. 4Forest plot of the pooled success rates of different treatment strategies with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (accompanied by the total number of ankles and total number of studies included in the pooled group, and the corresponding methodological quality; the size of the diamond representing the pooled success rate is adjusted for the number of ankles included)
| # |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | “Osteochondritis Dissecans”[Mesh] | Total number of results 1996–2017: 1053 hits |
| 2 | Osteochondritis dissecans[tiab] OR osteochondrosis dissecans[tiab] OR osteochondrolysis[tiab] OR OCD[tiab] OR OLT[tiab] | |
| 3 | (osteochondral[tiab] OR chondral[tiab] OR transchondral[tiab] OR cartilage*[tiab]) AND (defect*[tiab] OR lesion*[tiab]) | |
| 4 | #1 OR #2 OR #3 | |
| 5 | “Talus”[Mesh] | |
| 6 | talus[tiab] OR talar*[tiab] OR ankle[tiab] | |
| 7 | #5 OR #6 | |
| 8 | #4 AND #7 |
| # |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | (osteochondritis dissecans/or (osteochondritis dissecans or osteochondrosis dissecans or osteochondrolysis or OCD or OLT).ti,ab,kw. or ((osteochondral or chondral or osteochondral or transchondral or cartilage*) adj3 (defect* or lesion*)).ti,ab,kw.) and (talus/or (talus or talar* or ankle).ti,ab,kw.) | 1475 |
| 2 | limit 1 to yr = “1996–2017” | 1220 |
| # |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | MeSH descriptor: [Osteochondritis Dissecans] explode all trees | 8 |
| 2 | osteochondritis dissecans or osteochondrosis dissecans or osteochondrolysis or OCD or OLT:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) | 1188 |
| 3 | (osteochondral or chondral or transchondral or cartilage*) and (defect* or lesion*):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) | 343 |
| 4 | #1 or #2 or #3 | 1516 |
| 5 | MeSH descriptor: [Talus] explode all trees | 33 |
| 6 | talus or talar* or ankle:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) | 5266 |
| 7 | #5 or #6 | 5266 |
| 8 | #4 and #7, Publication Year from 1996 to 2017, in Cochrane Reviews (Reviews and Protocols), Other Reviews and Trials | 33 |
| Rating | Pain | Function | Examination | X-ray |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good | None | No restriction on activities | Normal | Normal |
| Fair | Occasionally with activity | Some limitation of activities | Mild swelling; slight decrease in motion | Minimal change |
| Poor | As before or worse | Moderate restriction of activities | Arthrosis, i.e. increased swelling and crepitus | Degenerative change |