Hansen, Oliver B.

Background: Osteochondral autograft transplant (OAT) is often used to treat large osteochondral lesions of the talus and is generally associated with good outcomes. The addition of adjuncts such as cartilage extracellular matrix with bone marrow aspirate concentrate (ECM-BMAC) may further improve the OAT procedure but have not been thoroughly studied. We hypothesized that the placement of ECM-BMAC around the OAT graft would improve radiographic and patient-reported outcomes following OAT. Methods: Patients who received OAT, with ECM-BMAC or BMAC alone, were screened and their charts were reviewed. For patients who did receive ECM-BMAC, the mixture was spread around the edges of the OAT plug and into any surrounding areas of cartilage damage. Survey and radiographic data were collected. Average follow-up in both groups was over 2 years. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were scored using the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Tissue (MOCART) system. Outcomes were compared statistically between groups. Results: Patients treated with ECM-BMAC (n = 34) demonstrated significantly greater improvement of scores in the FAOS categories Symptoms (17 vs −3; P = .02) and Sports Activities (40 vs 7; P = .02), and the MOCART category Subchondral Lamina ( P = .008) compared to those treated with BMAC alone (n = 30). They also experienced significantly lower rates of postoperative cysts (53% vs 18%, P = .04) and edema (94% vs 59%, P = .02). Conclusion: The addition of ECM-BMAC to OAT was associated with improved imaging and clinical outcomes compared to OAT with BMAC alone.

Background: Optimal treatment for patients with severe ankle instability or failed previous ankle stabilization is not well defined, and newer techniques have limited presence in the literature. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes after modified anatomic lateral ligament reconstruction using hamstring auto- or allograft in primary cases versus revision cases. We hypothesized that patients undergoing a revision procedure would demonstrate inferior patient-reported and radiographic outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent modified anatomic lateral ligament reconstruction by a single surgeon between 2010 and 2017 were identified. Indications included failure of previous ankle stabilization or severe ankle laxity. Patients completed preoperative and minimum 1-year postoperative Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) surveys. They also underwent pre- and postoperative stress radiographs using the Telos Stress Device. Results: A total of 41 patients (42 ankles) were identified. The mean age was 32.1 years, and 36 patients (88%) were women. There were 25 primary procedures and 17 revision procedures. Hamstring autograft was utilized in 35 ankles and hamstring allograft in 7 ankles. A total of 34 patients (83%) provided postoperative patient-reported outcome scores at a mean of 26 months (range, 12-65 months). When comparing primary versus revision procedures, revision patients had significantly lower FAOS Pain (77.14 vs 90.66; P = .009), Sports (63.46 vs 82.16; P = .008), and Quality of Life (53.53 vs 76.70; P = .002) scores. In total, 34 patients (83%) had stress radiographs at a mean of 14 months (range, 3-62 months) postoperatively. Revision patients also had lower, though statistically insignificant, postoperative talar tilt measurements on average (5.73° vs 7.10°; P = .252), and pre- to postoperative change in talar tilt was not significantly different between groups (−4.94° vs −7.03°; P = .415). Conclusion: Revision procedures had significantly lower postoperative patient-reported outcome scores and lower talar tilt compared with patients undergoing a primary procedure, although the pre- to postoperative change in the talar tilt was not significantly different between groups.

Background: Historically, microfracture has been used to treat small talar osteochondral lesions with good results, whereas osteochondral autologous transplantation (OAT) has proven effective for the treatment of larger lesions. It is not clear which method is more effective for medium-sized lesions around the critical size of 150 mm 2 , above which microfracture outcomes tend to be poor. The purpose of this study was to determine the potential advantages of OAT augmented with a combination of extracellular matrix and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (ECM-BMAC) compared to debridement with ECM-BMAC (DEB) in the treatment of medium-sized osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs). Methods: Clinical and radiographic data were collected retrospectively for patients treated by a single fellowship-trained foot and ankle surgeon. Magnetic resonance images (MRIs) were scored using the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Tissue (MOCART) system and were evaluated for the presence of cysts and edema. Fifty-two patients met inclusion criteria, with 25 who received an OAT procedure. Age, body mass index, lesion size, lesion location, and follow-up time were similar between groups. Average MRI follow-up times were 16.7 months for the OAT group and 20.3 months for the DEB group ( P = .38). Results: Patients treated with OAT had significantly higher average total MOCART scores (69 vs 55, P = .04) and significantly lower rates of cyst (14% vs 55%, P < .01), edema (59% vs 90%, P = .04), revision surgery (0% vs 19%, P = .05), and therapeutic injection for pain (4% vs 30%, P = .02) compared to patients treated with DEB. No significant differences were detected in patient-reported outcome scores between groups. Conclusion: The native hyaline cartilage introduced by OAT appears to result in higher-quality repair tissue when compared to DEB, as evidenced by OAT patients’ higher MOCART scores and lower rates of cyst and edema. There was no difference in clinical outcome scores, though OAT patients did not require revision surgery or therapeutic injection for pain as frequently as DEB patients. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Background: Microfracture (MF) has been used historically to treat osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs), with favorable outcomes reported in approximately 80% to 85% of cases. However, MF repairs have been shown to degrade over time at long-term follow-up, suggesting that further study into optimal OLT treatment is warranted. The use of adjuvant extracellular matrix with bone marrow aspirate concentrate (ECM-BMAC) has not been extensively evaluated in the literature. We present a comparison of patient-reported and radiographic outcomes following ECM-BMAC repair vs traditional MF. Methods: Patients who underwent MF (n = 67) or ECM-BMAC (n = 62) treatment for an OLT were identified and their charts were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated and patient-reported outcome scores, either Foot and Ankle Outcome Scores (FAOS) or Patient-Reported Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores, were collected. MRIs were scored by a radiologist, fellowship trained in musculoskeletal radiology, using the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) system. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. Results: On average, patients treated with ECM-BMAC demonstrated a higher total MOCART score compared to the MF group (73 ± SD 11.5 vs 54.0 ± 24.1; P = .0015). ECM-BMAC patients also had significantly better scores for the Infill, Integration, and Signal MOCART subcategories. Last, patients treated with ECM-BMAC had a lower rate of revision compared to those treated with MF (4.8% vs 20.9%; P = .007). FAOS scores were compared between groups, with no significant differences observed. Conclusion: When comparing outcomes between patients treated for an OLT with ECM-BMAC vs traditional MF, we observed superior MRI results for ECM-BMAC patients. The rate of revision surgery was higher for MF patients, although patient-reported outcomes were similar between groups. The use of ECM-BMAC as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of OLTs may result in improved reparative tissue when compared to MF. Level of Evidence: Level III, comparative series.