Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 36, Issue 11, pp 2279–2285 | Cite as

Treatment of deep articular talus lesions by matrix associated autologous chondrocyte implantation—results at five years

  • Sven AndersEmail author
  • Juergen Goetz
  • Thomas Schubert
  • Joachim Grifka
  • Jens Schaumburger
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Treatment of focal full-thickness chondral or osteochondral defects of the talus remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative success and the long-term efficacy of matrix associated autologous chondrocyte implantation in these defects.

Methods

Matrix associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) was applied in 22 consecutive patients (mean age 23.9 years) with full-thickness chondral or osteochondral lesions of the talus. The average defect-size was 1.94 cm² (range 1–6). In case of osteochondritis dissecans (n = 13) an autologous bone graft was performed simultaneously. Follow-ups were routinely scheduled up to 63.5 (±7.4) months, consisting of clinical evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging.

Results

The AOFAS score improved significantly from 70.1 to 87.9/92.6/93.5/95.0/95.5 and 95.3 points at three, six, 12, 24, 36 and 63.5 months, respectively. On a visual analogue scale, pain intensity decreased from 5.7 (±2.6) to 0.9 (±0.8) while subjective function increased from 5.3 (±2.3) to 8.9 (±0.9) at final follow-up (each p < 0.001). The Tegner score rose significantly from 2.4 (±1.2) to 4.7 (±0.6). The MOCART score improved from 62.6 (±19.4) at three months to 83.8 (±9.4) at final follow-up. No significant differences were found between lesions caused by osteochondritis dissecans or trauma and between first- or second-line treatments. For all scores, the most benefit was seen within the first 12 months with stable results afterwards. No major complications were noted.

Conclusions

Matrix associated autologous chondrocyte implantation is capable of significant and stable long-term improvement of pain and functional impairment caused by focal full-thickness chondral and osteochondral talus lesions.

Keywords

Cartilage Repair Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Osteochondral Defect Osteochondral Lesion Osteochondritis Dissecans 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflict of interest

One of the authors has declared a potential conflict of interest: Genzyme Biosurgery provided reimbursement for educational activities (S.A.). The authors did not receive any financial support for the development and preparation of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Zengerink M, Struijs PA, Tol JL, van Dijk CN (2010) Treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:238–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Driscoll SW (1998) The healing and regeneration of articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1795–1812PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckwalter JA, Lohmander S (1994) Operative treatment of osteoarthrosis. Current practice and future development. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:1405–1418PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giannini S, Vannini F (2004) Operative treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talar dome: current concepts review. Foot Ankle Int 25:168–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gautier E, Kolker D, Jakob RP (2002) Treatment of cartilage defects of the talus by autologous osteochondral grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:237–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peterson L, Vasiliadis HS, Brittberg M, Lindahl A (2010) Autologous chondrocyte implantation: a long-term follow-up. Am J Sports Med 38:1117–1124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brittberg M (2010) Cell carriers as the next generation of cell therapy for cartilage repair: a review of the matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation procedure. Am J Sports Med 38:1259–1271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brittberg M, Winalski CS (2003) Evaluation of cartilage injuries and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(Suppl 2):58–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M (1994) Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 15:349–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop 198:43–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marlovits S, Singer P, Zeller P, Mandl I, Haller J, Trattnig S (2006) Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) for the evaluation of autologous chondrocyte transplantation: determination of interobserver variability and correlation to clinical outcome after 2 years. Eur J Radiol 57:16–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petersen L, Brittberg M, Lindahl A (2003) Autologous chondrocyte transplantation of the ankle. Foot Ankle Clin 8:291–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koulalis D, Schultz W, Heyden M (2002) Autologous chondrocyte transplantation for osteochondritis dissecans of the talus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 395:186–192Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whittaker JP, Smith G, Makwana N, Roberts S, Harrison PE, Laing P, Richardson JB (2005) Early results of autologous chondrocyte implantation in the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:179–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baums MH, Heidrich G, Schultz W, Steckel H, Kahl E, Klinger HM (2006) Autologous chondrocyte transplantation for treating cartilage defects of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:303–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nam EK, Ferkel RD, Applegate GR (2009) Autologous chondrocyte implantation of the ankle: a 2- to 5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 37:274–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giannini S, Battaglia M, Buda R, Cavallo M, Ruffilli A, Vannini F (2009) Surgical treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus by open-field autologous chondrocyte implantation: a 10-year follow-up clinical and magnetic resonance imaging T2-mapping evaluation. Am J Sports Med 37(Suppl 1):112S–118SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choi YS, Potter HG, Chun TJ (2008) MR imaging of cartilage repair in the knee and ankle. Radiographics 28:1043–1059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aurich M, Bedi HS, Smith PJ, Rolauffs B, Muckley T, Clayton J, Blackney M (2011) Arthroscopic treatment of osteochondral lesions of the ankle with matrix-associated chondrocyte implantation: early clinical and magnetic resonance imaging results. Am J Sports Med 39:311–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giannini S, Buda R, Faldini C, Vannini F, Bevoni R, Grandi G, Grigolo B, Berti L (2005) Surgical treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus in young active patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(Suppl 2):28–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giza E, Sullivan M, Ocel D, Lundeen G, Mitchell ME, Veris L, Walton J (2010) Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation of talus articular defects. Foot Ankle Int 31:747–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider TE, Karaikudi S (2009) Matrix-Induced Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (MACI) grafting for osteochondral lesions of the talus. Foot Ankle Int 30:810–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee KT, Lee YK, Young KW, Park SY, Kim JS (2012) Factors influencing result of autologous chondrocyte implantation in osteochondral lesion of the talus using second look arthroscopy. Scand J Med Sci Sports 22(4):510–515Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Giannini S, Buda R, Vannini F, Di Caprio F, Grigolo B (2008) Arthroscopic autologous chondrocyte implantation in osteochondral lesions of the talus: surgical technique and results. Am J Sports Med 36:873–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Niemeyer P, Salzmann G, Schmal H, Mayr H, Sudkamp NP (2011) Autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of chondral and osteochondral defects of the talus: a meta-analysis of available evidence. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. Oct 30. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Anders
    • 1
    Email author
  • Juergen Goetz
    • 1
  • Thomas Schubert
    • 2
  • Joachim Grifka
    • 1
  • Jens Schaumburger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for PathologySpeyerGermany

Personalised recommendations