Yoshiharu Shimozono1,2, Eoghan T Hurley3, Joseph T Nguyen1, Timothy W Deyer4, John G Kennedy1. 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. 3. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 4. East River Imaging Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of clinical studies that compare the efficacy of autograft and allograft in osteochondral transplantation for treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT). The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes following osteochondral transplantation with autograft or allograft for OLT. METHODS: A retrospective analysis comparing patients treated with autograft or allograft for OLT was performed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with use of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) score. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated with use of the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score. The rates of cyst occurrence, graft degradation, graft failure, and revision surgeries were also evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-five nonrandomized patients with autograft and 16 with allograft were included, with a mean follow-up of 26 months in the autograft group and 22 months in the allograft group. There were no significant differences among all demographic variables between the autograft and allograft groups. The mean postoperative FAOS was significantly higher in the autograft group (81.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.6 to 85.2) than in the allograft group (70.1; 95% CI: 63.7 to 76.5; p = 0.006). Similarly, the mean postoperative SF-12 scores were significantly higher in the autograft group (74.7; 95% CI: 71.0 to 78.4) than in the allograft group (66.1; 95% CI: 61.2 to 71.0; p = 0.021). MOCART scores were significantly better in the autograft group (87.1) than in the allograft group (75.5; p = 0.005). The rate of chondral wear on MRI was higher in the allograft group (53%) than in the autograft group (4%; p < 0.001). Cyst formation in the graft itself was more likely to occur in the allograft group (47%) than in the autograft group (8%; p = 0.017). The rate of secondary procedures for the graft was higher in the allograft group (25%) than in the autograft group (0%; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In this small nonrandomized cohort study, the procedures performed with use of an autograft provided better clinical and MRI outcomes than the allograft procedures. The rate of chondral wear on MRI was higher with allograft than with autograft, and allograft-treated patients had a higher rate of clinical failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of clinical studies that compare the efficacy of autograft and allograft in osteochondral transplantation for treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT). The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes following osteochondral transplantation with autograft or allograft for OLT. METHODS: A retrospective analysis comparing patients treated with autograft or allograft for OLT was performed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with use of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) score. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated with use of the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score. The rates of cyst occurrence, graft degradation, graft failure, and revision surgeries were also evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-five nonrandomized patients with autograft and 16 with allograft were included, with a mean follow-up of 26 months in the autograft group and 22 months in the allograft group. There were no significant differences among all demographic variables between the autograft and allograft groups. The mean postoperative FAOS was significantly higher in the autograft group (81.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.6 to 85.2) than in the allograft group (70.1; 95% CI: 63.7 to 76.5; p = 0.006). Similarly, the mean postoperative SF-12 scores were significantly higher in the autograft group (74.7; 95% CI: 71.0 to 78.4) than in the allograft group (66.1; 95% CI: 61.2 to 71.0; p = 0.021). MOCART scores were significantly better in the autograft group (87.1) than in the allograft group (75.5; p = 0.005). The rate of chondral wear on MRI was higher in the allograft group (53%) than in the autograft group (4%; p < 0.001). Cyst formation in the graft itself was more likely to occur in the allograft group (47%) than in the autograft group (8%; p = 0.017). The rate of secondary procedures for the graft was higher in the allograft group (25%) than in the autograft group (0%; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In this small nonrandomized cohort study, the procedures performed with use of an autograft provided better clinical and MRI outcomes than the allograft procedures. The rate of chondral wear on MRI was higher with allograft than with autograft, and allograft-treated patients had a higher rate of clinical failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Filippo Migliorini; Jörg Eschweiler; Nicola Maffulli; Hanno Schenker; Alice Baroncini; Markus Tingart; Björn Rath Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2021-02-25
Authors: Filippo Migliorini; Jörg Eschweiler; Nicola Maffulli; Hanno Schenker; Arne Driessen; Björn Rath; Markus Tingart Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2021-03-16