We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Lesion Size Is a Predictor of Clinical Outcomes After Bone Marrow Stimulation for Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus: A Systematic Review.
American Journal of Sports Medicine 2017 June
BACKGROUND: The critical lesion size treated with bone marrow stimulation (BMS) for osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs) has been 150 mm2 in area or 15 mm in diameter. However, recent investigations have failed to detect a significant correlation between the lesion size and clinical outcomes after BMS for OLTs.
PURPOSE: To systematically review clinical studies reporting both the lesion size and clinical outcomes after BMS for OLTs.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed in March 2015 based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included studies were evaluated with regard to the level of evidence (LOE), quality of evidence (QOE), lesion size, and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Twenty-five studies with 1868 ankles were included; 88% were either LOE 3 or 4, and 96% did not have good QOE. The mean area was 103.8 ± 10.2 mm2 in 20 studies, and the mean diameter was 10.0 ± 3.2 mm in 5 studies. The mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score improved from 62.4 ± 7.9 preoperatively to 83.9 ± 9.2 at a mean 54.1-month follow-up in 14 studies reporting both preoperative and postoperative scores with a mean follow-up of more than 2 years. A significant correlation was found in 3 studies, with a mean lesion area of 107.4 ± 10.4 mm2 , while none was reported in 8 studies, with a mean lesion area of 85.3 ± 9.2 mm2 . The lesion diameter significantly correlated with clinical outcomes in 2 studies (mean diameter, 10.2 ± 3.2 mm), whereas none was found in 2 studies (mean diameter, 8.8 ± 0.0 mm). However, the reported lesion size measurement method and evaluation method of clinical outcomes widely varied among the studies.
CONCLUSION: An assessment of the currently available data does suggest that BMS may best be reserved for OLT sizes less than 107.4 mm2 in area and/or 10.2 mm in diameter. Future development in legitimate prognostic size guidelines based on high-quality evidence that correlate with outcomes will surely provide patients with the best potential for successful long-term outcomes.
PURPOSE: To systematically review clinical studies reporting both the lesion size and clinical outcomes after BMS for OLTs.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed in March 2015 based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included studies were evaluated with regard to the level of evidence (LOE), quality of evidence (QOE), lesion size, and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Twenty-five studies with 1868 ankles were included; 88% were either LOE 3 or 4, and 96% did not have good QOE. The mean area was 103.8 ± 10.2 mm2 in 20 studies, and the mean diameter was 10.0 ± 3.2 mm in 5 studies. The mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score improved from 62.4 ± 7.9 preoperatively to 83.9 ± 9.2 at a mean 54.1-month follow-up in 14 studies reporting both preoperative and postoperative scores with a mean follow-up of more than 2 years. A significant correlation was found in 3 studies, with a mean lesion area of 107.4 ± 10.4 mm2 , while none was reported in 8 studies, with a mean lesion area of 85.3 ± 9.2 mm2 . The lesion diameter significantly correlated with clinical outcomes in 2 studies (mean diameter, 10.2 ± 3.2 mm), whereas none was found in 2 studies (mean diameter, 8.8 ± 0.0 mm). However, the reported lesion size measurement method and evaluation method of clinical outcomes widely varied among the studies.
CONCLUSION: An assessment of the currently available data does suggest that BMS may best be reserved for OLT sizes less than 107.4 mm2 in area and/or 10.2 mm in diameter. Future development in legitimate prognostic size guidelines based on high-quality evidence that correlate with outcomes will surely provide patients with the best potential for successful long-term outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app