Primary Versus Secondary Osteochondral Autograft Transplantation for the Treatment of Large Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported promising clinical results after osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT) for the treatment of large osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT). However, no study has yet compared clinical outcomes between primary and secondary OAT for large OLT. PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with large OLT who receive primary OAT versus those who receive secondary OAT after failure of marrow stimulation and to identify factors associated with clinical failure. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: From 2005 to 2014, 46 patients with large OLT (≥150 mm2) underwent OAT: 18 underwent OAT as initial surgical management (primary OAT group), and 28 patients underwent secondary OAT after failure of previous arthroscopic marrow stimulation (secondary OAT group). In both groups, OAT procedures included arthroscopic inspection and debridement of concomitant soft tissue injuries. Clinical outcomes were assessed using pain visual analog scale (VAS), the Roles and Maudsley score, Foot and Ankle Outcome Scores (FAOS), and revisional surgery rates. Factors associated with clinical failures were evaluated using bivariate and logistic regression analyses. Survival outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 6 years (range, 2-10.8 years). Mean lesion size was 194.9 mm2 (range, 151.7-296.3 mm2). There were no significant differences between groups in patient demographics and preoperative findings. Postoperative pain VAS, Roles and Maudsley score, FAOS, and revisional surgery rates were not significantly different at last follow-up. Prior marrow stimulation was not significantly associated with clinical failure on bivariate analysis. Lesion size greater than 225 mm2 on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging was significantly associated with clinical failure. Survival probabilities from Kaplan-Meier plots were not significantly different between the primary and secondary OAT groups ( P = .947). CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes of patients with large OLT treated with secondary OAT after failed marrow stimulation were found to be comparable with those who were treated with primary OAT. These results may be helpful to orthopaedic surgeons deciding appropriate surgical options for patients with large OLT.

Detection of the Tram Track Lesion in the Ankle Joint: Comparing 3.0-Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Arthroscopy.

PURPOSE: To show the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of tram track lesions in the ankle compared with ankle arthroscopy. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed all patients who underwent arthroscopic ankle surgery between January 2013 and July 2015. Patients with anterior impingement spurs were included, but those with an osteochondral lesion or arthritis were excluded. Anterior ankle bony spurs on preoperative weight-bearing radiographs were scored using an impingement classification system. The 3.0-tesla MRIs were reviewed for tram track lesions (defined as focal high signal intensity along the talar dome cartilage surface on coronal views) and compared with arthroscopic findings. The cartilage defect grade at arthroscopy was stratified according to the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grading system. RESULTS: Overall, 175 ankles in 170 patients were evaluated. Tram track lesions were identified on MRI in 14 ankles (8.0%) and at arthroscopy in 16 ankles (9.1%). The overall sensitivity of MRI for the detection of tram track lesions was 87.5% and the specificity was 100%. On plain weight-bearing radiographs, of the 16 patients with confirmed tram track lesions on arthroscopy, 4 patients had grade 1, 2 had grade 2, and 10 had grade 3 impingement spurs. Under the ICRS grading system, 4 patients had grade II, 4 had grade III, and 8 had grade IV cartilage defects at arthroscopy. On MRI, 2 patients had grade II (50% of arthroscopy), 4 had grade III (100% of arthroscopy), and 8 had grade IV defects (100% of arthroscopy). The impingement spur grade showed no significant correlation with the arthroscopic ICRS grade of the tram track lesion (P = .609). CONCLUSION: Tram track lesions can be confidently detected on MRI with high sensitivity and specificity. The impingement spur grade did not correlate with the severity of cartilage injury of the talar dome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic evaluation study.

Short-term Clinical and Radiographic Results of the Salto Mobile Total Ankle Prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: The mobile-bearing Salto total ankle prosthesis has been reported to have promising outcomes. However, clinical reports on this prosthesis are few, and most have been published by the inventors and disclosed consultants. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 59 patients who received Salto prosthesis unilaterally. The average follow-up was 35.9 (range, 6-56) months. Clinical and radiologic results were evaluated. Clinical results were evaluated according to visual analog scale (VAS), American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) pain and disability score, and ankle range of motion (ROM) in dorsiflexion/plantarflexion. In the radiographic evaluation, we measured the tibial angle (TA), talar angle (TAL), tibial slope, and talocalcaneal angle (TCA) on weightbearing radiographs. RESULTS: By the last follow-up, 7 of 59 patients (11.9%) had undergone reoperation, and 3 of 59 implants (5.1%) had been removed. The prosthesis survival was 94.9% (95% CI, 89.1%-100%). With any reoperation as the endpoint of follow-up, the clinical success rate was 88.1% (95% CI, 79.4%-96.9%). The mean postoperative visual analog scale score, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score, and Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale pain and disability score improved significantly ( P < .001). The ankle range of motion also improved from preoperative 33.4 ± 16.6 to 40.3 ± 15.5 postoperatively ( P < .001); however, there was no statistically significant change in plantarflexion ( P = .243). Radiolucent areas and osteolysis were found in 28 (47.5%) and 27 (45.8%) patients, respectively. Heterotopic ossification was observed in 13 patients (22.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In this series, early clinical and radiographic outcomes of this prosthesis were promising. We believe the early radiolucent lines were probably due to the gap at the implant and bone interface, and they disappeared at the time of osseous integration. However, longer follow-up is necessary to determine the long-term durability and survivorship of this implant, particularly given the high incidence of postoperative osteolysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

Popliteal artery pseudoaneurysm following primary total knee arthroplasty.

An early diagnosis of popliteal artery pseudoaneurysm-a sequela of popliteal artery trauma-is difficult owing to its late presentation following total knee arthroplasty. The incidence of a popliteal artery pseudoaneurysm with a hematoma presenting only a peripheral nerve injury after total knee arthroplasty is also uncommon in the absence of common diagnostic features such as a pulsatile swelling with an audible bruit on auscultation. In the present report, we describe popliteal artery pseudoaneurysm following total knee arthroplasty.