Dexter Seow1,2,3, Hugo A Ubillus1, Mohammad T Azam1, Nathaniel Mercer1, Youichi Yasui4, James Hui2,3, Christopher J Pearce2,3, John G Kennedy5. 1. NYU Langone Health, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York, USA. 2. National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Teikyo University, Tokyo, Japan. 5. NYU Langone Health, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York, USA. john.kennedy@nyulangone.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the complication rates, continuous functional outcome scores, and return to play data following bone marrow stimulation (BMS) versus biologics ± BMS for the treatment of osteochondral lesion of the talus (OLT). METHODS: A systematic review was performed. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched using specific search terms and eligibility criteria according to the PRISMA guidelines. The level of evidence was assessed using published criteria by The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, and the quality of evidence using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation and categorical variables as frequencies (percentages). RESULTS: BMS versus BMS + hyaluronic acid (HA): no complications in either treatment arm were reported. The mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score was 43.5 to 67.3 points and 44.0 to 72.4 points, respectively. The mean 10 mm Visual Analogue Scale pain score was 7.7 to 3.8 points and 7.5 to 2.5 points, respectively. BMS versus BMS + concentrated bone marrow aspirate (CBMA): the pooled overall complication rate was 17/64 (26.6%) versus 11/71 (15.5%), respectively (non-significant). The pool revision rate was 15/64 (23.4%) versus 6/71 (8.5%), respectively (p = 0.016). There has been a notable poor reporting of complication rates for the use of ADSC and PRP as adjuvant biological therapies to BMS for the treatment of OLT. CONCLUSION: There was an overall limited comparative clinical evidence of adjuvant biologics with BMS versus BMS alone for the treatment of OLT. BMS + HA and BMS + CBMA can provide superior outcomes, albeit the currently limited evidence. Further studies are warranted to establish the true clinical superiority of the various biologics ± BMS versus BMS alone. These studies must also compare the various biologics against one another to determine, if any, the optimal biologic for OLT. Clinicians should counsel patients accordingly on these findings as required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the complication rates, continuous functional outcome scores, and return to play data following bone marrow stimulation (BMS) versus biologics ± BMS for the treatment of osteochondral lesion of the talus (OLT). METHODS: A systematic review was performed. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched using specific search terms and eligibility criteria according to the PRISMA guidelines. The level of evidence was assessed using published criteria by The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, and the quality of evidence using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation and categorical variables as frequencies (percentages). RESULTS: BMS versus BMS + hyaluronic acid (HA): no complications in either treatment arm were reported. The mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score was 43.5 to 67.3 points and 44.0 to 72.4 points, respectively. The mean 10 mm Visual Analogue Scale pain score was 7.7 to 3.8 points and 7.5 to 2.5 points, respectively. BMS versus BMS + concentrated bone marrow aspirate (CBMA): the pooled overall complication rate was 17/64 (26.6%) versus 11/71 (15.5%), respectively (non-significant). The pool revision rate was 15/64 (23.4%) versus 6/71 (8.5%), respectively (p = 0.016). There has been a notable poor reporting of complication rates for the use of ADSC and PRP as adjuvant biological therapies to BMS for the treatment of OLT. CONCLUSION: There was an overall limited comparative clinical evidence of adjuvant biologics with BMS versus BMS alone for the treatment of OLT. BMS + HA and BMS + CBMA can provide superior outcomes, albeit the currently limited evidence. Further studies are warranted to establish the true clinical superiority of the various biologics ± BMS versus BMS alone. These studies must also compare the various biologics against one another to determine, if any, the optimal biologic for OLT. Clinicians should counsel patients accordingly on these findings as required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.