Eren Toygun Kağan, Ataoğlu Muhammet Baybars, Eren Ali, Geylan Dilan Ece, Öner Ali Yusuf, Kanatlı Ulunay
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, 06560 Yenimahalle, Ankara,
Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2019 Aug;30(2):97-105. doi: 10.5606/ehc.2019.64401.
This study aims to compare two single-step arthroscopic techniques, microfracture and cell-free scaffold implantation, in the treatment of talar osteochondral lesions (OCLs) clinically and radiologically.
This retrospective study included 62 patients (35 males, 27 females; mean age 41±13 years; range, 15 to 65 years) diagnosed with talar OCLs between March 2007 and January 2015. Patients who were followed-up with a minimum of 24 months with lesions larger than 1 cm2 were included. Pre- and postoperative clinical evaluations were performed according to the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scale and radiological evaluations according to the magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) scale.
Patients were divided into microfracture (n=22) and scaffold (n=40) groups. The mean follow-up duration was 36.1±14.9 months. The mean preoperative AOFAS score increased from 60.6±13.9 to 82.1±11.8 in the microfracture group (p<0.001) and from 53.8±13.6 to 89.4±9.9 in the scaffold group (p<0.001). The scaffold group had superior results than the microfracture group clinically (p=0.011). Clinical results were superior in younger patients (<45 years) (p=0.018), male patients (p=0.020), and traumatic lesions (p=0.014). There was no significant difference between the two techniques according to the total MOCART scores (p=0.199). However, the scaffold technique was more successful in terms of lesion border and effusion subgoups of MOCART scale.
Both single-step arthroscopic techniques are effective and safe in the treatment of talar OCLs. The scaffold technique showed superior clinical results than the microfracture technique in short-term follow-up. Age, trauma history and gender significantly affected the treatment outcomes. The scaffold technique can be considered as a safe and good alternative particularly in the treatment of large lesions.
本研究旨在从临床和影像学方面比较两种单步关节镜技术,即微骨折术和无细胞支架植入术,用于治疗距骨骨软骨损伤(OCLs)。
这项回顾性研究纳入了2007年3月至2015年1月期间诊断为距骨OCLs的62例患者(35例男性,27例女性;平均年龄41±13岁;范围15至65岁)。纳入至少随访24个月且损伤面积大于1平方厘米的患者。术前和术后临床评估根据美国矫形足踝协会(AOFAS)踝-后足评分量表进行,影像学评估根据软骨修复组织磁共振观察(MOCART)量表进行。
患者分为微骨折组(n = 22)和支架组(n = 40)。平均随访时间为36.1±14.9个月。微骨折组术前AOFAS平均评分从60.6±13.9提高到82.1±11.8(p<0.001),支架组从53.8±13.6提高到89.4±9.9(p<0.001)。支架组临床效果优于微骨折组(p = 0.011)。年轻患者(<45岁)(p = 0.018)、男性患者(p = 0.020)和创伤性损伤患者(p = 0.014)的临床效果更佳。根据MOCART总分,两种技术之间无显著差异(p = 0.199)。然而,在MOCART量表的损伤边界和积液亚组方面,支架技术更成功。
两种单步关节镜技术在治疗距骨OCLs方面均有效且安全。在短期随访中,支架技术的临床效果优于微骨折技术。年龄、创伤史和性别显著影响治疗结果。支架技术尤其在治疗大面积损伤时可被视为一种安全且良好的替代方法。