4.5 Article

Autologous osteochondral transplantation for osteochondral lesions of the talus in an athletic population

Journal

KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 1272-1279

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3606-8

Keywords

Osteochondral; Ankle; Talus; Autograft

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To assess clinical outcomes and return to sport in an athletic population treated with autologous osteochondral transplantation (AOT) for osteochondral lesions of the talus. A total of 36 patients were included in this retrospective study including 21 professional athletes and 15 amateur athletes who participated in regular moderate- or high-impact athletic activity. All patients underwent autologous osteochondral transplantation of the talus under the care of a single surgeon. At a mean follow-up of 5.9 years, patients were assessed using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scoring system. All patients also received pre-operative MRI with the follow-up MRI performed at 1 year and underwent assessment of return to athletic activity. The overall AOFAS score improved from 65.5 (SD +/- A 11.1) to 89.4 (SD +/- A 14.4) (p = 0.01). At a final follow-up, 90 % of professional athletes (19 of 21) were still competing in athletic activity or still able to participate in unrestricted activity. Of the recreational athletes, 87 % (13 of 15) had full return to pre-injury activity levels, while two (13 %) returned to activity with restrictions or reduced intensity. MRI showed cystic change in 33 % of patients post-operatively; however, this did not appear to affect outcomes (n.s.). Donor site symptoms were seen in 11 % of the cohort at final follow-up, despite high function at donor knee. The results of our study indicate that AOT procedure is able to achieve good outcomes in an athletic population at a midterm follow-up. Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available