Christoph Becher1,2, Michael Alexander Malahias3, Moataz Mahmoud Ali3, Nicola Maffulli4,5,6, Hajo Thermann3. 1. HKF-International Center for Hip-, Knee-and Foot Surgery, ATOS Clinic Heidelberg, Bismarckstr. 9-15, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany. becher.chris@web.de. 2. Orthopädische Klinik der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover (MHH) im Diakovere Annastift, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany. becher.chris@web.de. 3. HKF-International Center for Hip-, Knee-and Foot Surgery, ATOS Clinic Heidelberg, Bismarckstr. 9-15, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Musculoskeletal Disorders, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy. 5. Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Hospital, 275 Bancroft Road, London, E1 4DG, UK. 6. Institute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Stoke on Trent, Keele University School of Medicine, Keele, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Entities:
Keywords:
AMIC; Ankle arthroscopy; Cartilage repair; Microfracture; Osteochondral lesions of the talus
Authors: Yoshiharu Shimozono; Max Coale; Youichi Yasui; Amanda O'Halloran; Timothy W Deyer; John G Kennedy Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Stephan E Domayer; Siegfried Trattnig; David Stelzeneder; Clemens Hirschfeld; Sebastian Quirbach; Ronald Dorotka; Stefan Nehrer; Katja Pinker; Jenny Chan; Tallal Charles Mamisch; Martin Dominkus; Götz H Welsch Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Riccardo DʼAmbrosi; Jorge H Villafañe; Cristian Indino; Federico M Liuni; Pedro Berjano; Federico G Usuelli Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Christian David Weber; Gino Kerkhoffs; Jari Dahmen; Dari Ush Arbab; Philipp Kobbe; Frank Hildebrand; Philipp Lichte Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: David R Maldonado; Jeffrey W Chen; Ajay C Lall; Cynthia Kyin; Rafael Walker-Santiago; Jacob Shapira; Philip J Rosinsky; Benjamin G Domb Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2019-09-26
Authors: Daniel Körner; Christoph E Gonser; Stefan Döbele; Christian Konrads; Fabian Springer; Gabriel Keller Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Daniel Körner; Christoph E Gonser; Stefan Döbele; Christian Konrads; Fabian Springer; Gabriel Keller Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Young Koo Lee; Ki Won Young; Jin Su Kim; Hong Seop Lee; Whi-Je Cho; Hyong Nyun Kim Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 2.362