Back to Authors

O’Malley, Martin

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1481-5556

Mayo Clinic

Hospital for Special Surgery

Citations 2

Bridging Conservative Management With Injectable Orthobiologic Therapies: Proceedings of the International Consensus Meetings on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle
Tham, Alexander, Rubin, Jared, Butler, James J., Gauthier, Paloma , Kennedy, John G. , Adams, Samuel B., Andrews, Carol L., Batista, Jorge , Baur, Onno L., Bayer, Stephen, Becher, Christoph, Berlet, Gregory C. , Boakye, Lorraine AT, Buda, R, Calder, James D. F., Dahmen, Jari , D’Hooghe, Pieter, DiGiovanni, Christopher W., Ehlers, M. , Ferkel, Richard D. , Ferkel, Eric, Ferrao, Paulo N. F., Giza, Eric , Gianakos, Arianna L., Glazebrook, Mark, Gomaa, Mohamed, Görtz, Simon, Haleem, Amgad M. , Hamid, Kamran S. , Hangody, László, Haverkamp, Daniel, Hertel, Jay, Hintermann, Beat, Hogan, MaCalus V., Hunt, Kenneth J., Hurley, Eoghan T., Karlsson, Jon, Kearns, Stephen R. , Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J., Kim, Hak Jun , Kong, Siu Wah, Krebsbach, Sebastian, Labib, Sameh A. , Lambers, Kaj T. A. , Lee, Jin Woo, Lee, Keun Bae, Ling, Jeffrey S., Longo, Umile Giuseppe, Marangon, Alberto, McCollum, G, McCullough, Kirk, Mittwede, Peter N. , Murawski, Christopher D. , Nicolescu, Raluca, Niemeyer, Philipp, Nunley, James A., O'Malley, Martin, Ortiz, Cristian, Osei-Hwedieh, David O. , Paul, Jochen , Pearce, Christopher J., Pereira, Hélder , Phadke, Rohan , Prado, Marcelo P. , Raikin, Steven M., Reilingh, Mikel L., Robert, Guillaume , Lc, Schon, Simpson, Helene, Smyth, Niall A. , Sofka, Carolyn M., Spennacchio, Pietro, Stone, James W., Takao, M, Tanaka, Yasuhito, Thermann, Hajo, Thordarson, David B. , Rs, Tuan, Valderrabano, Victor, Bergen, Christian J. A. van, Dijk, Pim A. D van, Dijk, Niek van, Vannini, Francesca, Vaseenon, Tanawat , Volesky, Monika , Walls, Raymond C., Walther, Markus, Wiewiorski, Martin, Xu, Xiangyang, Yasui, Youichi , Yinghui, Hua, Yoshimura, Ichiro, Younger, Alastair , Zdanowicz, Urszala, Zhang, Zijun, Adams, Samuel B. , Clanton, Thomas O , Dahmen, Jari , Ehlers, Mallory , Hannon, Charles P , Labib, Sameh A , Popchak, Adam , Robert, Guillaume , Smyth, Niall A , Tham, Alexander , Rubin, J Peter , Butler, James J., Angthong, Chayanin , Becher, Christoph, Boakye, Lorraine A. T. , Buda, Roberto , Calder, James D. F. , Canata, Gian Luigi , Carreira, Dominic S. , Dahmen, Jari , d’Hooghe, Pieter P. R. N. , DiGiovanni, Christopher William , Dombrowski, Malcolm E. , Ferkel, Eric I. , Ferrao, Paulo N. F. , Gianakos, Arianna L. , Glazebrook, Mark Anthony , Gomaa, Mohamed, Hannon, Charles P. , Haverkamp, Daniël , Hintermann, Beat , Hogan, MaCalus Vinson , Hunt, Kenneth John , Hurley, Eoghan T. , Karlsson, Jon, Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J. , Krebsbach, Sebastian , Lee, Jin Woo , Longo, Umile Giuseppe , Mitchell, Adam W. , Nehrer, Stefan , Niemeyer, Philipp , Nunley, James A. , O’Malley, Martin , Pearce, Christopher Jon , Pereira, Hélder , Raikin, Steven M. , Rothrauff, Benjamin B. , Schon, Lew Charles , Spennacchio, Pietro , Sullivan, Martin, Tanaka, Yasuhito , Valderrábano, Víctor , Dijk, Pim A. D. van , Vannini, Francesca , Walther, Markus , Wiewiorski, Martin J., Xu, Xiangyang , Yoshimura, Ichiro , Zhang, Zijun

Foot & Ankle Specialist | July 24, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1177/19386400261456925 Get It

Background The management of osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT) is challenging, with 2 main options being conservative and surgical management. Orthobiologic therapies come to bridge the gap between these 2 options; however, inconsistencies in indication, composition, and heterogeneous evidence limit clinical decision-making. To address these challenges, 3 International Congress Meetings on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle were convened in Pittsburgh, USA (2017), Dublin, Ireland (2019), and New York, USA (2025) to establish agreement on the role of conservative management and injectable orthobiologic strategies in the treatment of OLT. Methods Seventy-five multidisciplinary experts from over 25 countries and 1 territory participated in a structured Delphi-based consensus process. Blinded surveys, structured questionnaires, and in-person discussions were used to develop and refine statements, supported by literature review and graded evidence (A1–E). Consensus strength was defined as consensus (51%-74%), strong consensus (75%-99%), or unanimous (100%) Results In total, 29 consensus statements were achieved across the 3 meetings. Strong agreement was reached regarding indications and expected outcomes of conservative management, including the role of immobilization and appropriate timing for surgical intervention. Orthobiologic injections, including platelet-rich plasma, concentrated bone marrow aspirate, and hyaluronic acid, were considered appropriate in select patients with persistent symptoms, although no superiority was demonstrated among formulations, preparation methods, or injection strategies. When used as adjuncts to surgical procedures, orthobiologics may improve radiological outcomes, with limited evidence for improvement in clinical outcomes. Technical considerations, including preferred harvest sites and a lack of standardized preparation protocols, were identified, along with key principles for patient counseling Conclusion These international consensus statements establish a standardized framework for the conservative management and use of injectable orthobiologic therapies in OLT. By clarifying indications, technical considerations, and current limitations, this work aims to improve consistency in clinical practice, guide treatment decision-making, and inform future research.
Open Achilles Tendon Repair
Moore, M. Lane , Pollock, Jordan R. , Karsen, Phillip J. , Haglin, Jack M. , Lai, Cara , Elahi, Muhammad Ali , Chhabra, Anikar , O’Malley, Martin , Patel, Karan A. , Lai, Cara H , Elahi, Muhammad A , Moore, M Lane , Patel, Karan , Pollock, Jordan Riley , Chhabra, Anikar

JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques | March 9, 2023 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 1 | Pages: e21.00054

10.2106/jbjs.st.21.00054 Get It

Background: An open Achilles tendon repair is performed in patients who have suffered an acute rupture. All patients with this injury should be counseled on their treatment options, which include open operative repair and functional rehabilitation. We prefer the use of an open repair in high-level athletes and those who have delayed presentation. Typically, this injury—and the resulting open repair—are seen in young or middle-aged patients as well as athletes. Operative repair of a ruptured Achilles tendon is associated with a much faster return to activity/sport when compared with nonoperative alternatives. This surgical procedure is especially useful in allowing this patient population to return to their previous activity level and functional capacity as quickly as possible. Description: Open repair of a ruptured Achilles tendon begins with a 6 to 8-cm incision over the posteromedial aspect of the lower leg. Superficial and deep dissections are performed until the 2 ends of the ruptured tendon are identified. Adhesions are debrided to adequately mobilize and define the proximal and distal segments of the tendon. With use of a fiber tape suture, a modified locking Bunnell stitch is utilized to secure both ends. The fiber tape is tied securely, and the repair is reinforced with Vicryl suture (Ethicon). Once the tendon is repaired, the paratenon layer is identified and repaired with a running 0 or 2-0 Vicryl suture. This is an important step to minimize postoperative wound complications. The wound is then closed, and the extremity is splinted in maximum plantar flexion. Alternatives: Alternative treatments include minimally invasive surgical techniques such as percutaneous Achilles tendon repair and nonoperative treatment with functional rehabilitation, which can provide excellent outcomes but can also lead to a slight decrease in explosiveness as the patient returns to sport 1,2 . Rationale: Nonoperative and operative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture can both result in excellent patient outcomes. Appropriate patient selection is critical. Younger patients hoping to return to more highly competitive athletics should consider operative repair 3 . Possible differences have been identified in peak torque when comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment, with patients who had undergone operative repair having greater peak torque (i.e., explosiveness) 2 . Otherwise, findings are similar between treatment options as long as the patients meet the criteria for nonoperative treatment. Expected Outcomes: Overall, the scientific literature demonstrates that the functional outcomes following operative repair are good to excellent. In a study by Hsu et al. 4 , 88% of patients were able to return to their baseline level of activity by 5 months postoperatively, with a complication rate of 10.6% and no reruptures. In a recent meta-analysis by Meulenkamp et al. 5 , the authors found that operative repair of Achilles tendon rupture was associated with a reduced risk of rerupture compared with primary immobilization (i.e., conventional cast immobilization with delayed weight-bearing for at least 6 weeks only). However, open surgical repair, minimally invasive repair, and functional rehabilitation all had similar risk of rerupture 5 . In a review by Ochen et al. 6 that analyzed 29 studies with a total of 15,862 patients, operative repair was associated with a significantly lower risk of rerupture compared with nonoperative treatment (2.3% versus 3.9%, respectively). However, operative treatment was also associated with a significantly higher complication rate compared with nonoperative treatment (4.9% versus 1.6%, respectively) 6 . Finally, in a meta-analysis by Soroceanu et al. 7 , the authors found that if early range-of-motion protocols and functional rehabilitation were utilized, operative and nonoperative treatment resulted in similar outcomes and equivalent rates of rerupture. Important Tips: To prevent rerupture of an Achilles tendon, remind patients to engage in adequate stretching and warming prior to physical activity. Palpate and locate the tendon defect prior to making the first incision. Immobilize the ankle joint in a splint for 2 weeks postoperatively in maximum plantar flexion. Pitfalls include: ○ Poor suture management leading to tangling in the repair. ○ Undertensioning or overtensioning of the repair, which can be avoided by sterilely draping out both legs and checking resting tension intraoperatively. ○ Failure to close the paratenon, causing scarring of the skin or surrounding tissues, which can be avoided by making a relieving incision on the deep surface of the paratenon. ○ Leaving suture knots on the dorsal side of the repair that may aggravate the skin. Acronyms & Abbreviations: MRI = magnetic resonance imaging ESU = electrosurgical unit