4.6 Review

Microfracture for Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus A Systematic Review of Reporting of Outcome Data

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 689-695

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0363546512458218

Keywords

microfracture; osteochondral lesion; talus; ankle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Microfracture is recognized as a primary treatment strategy for osteochondral lesions of the talus up to 15 mm in size. The ability of fibrocartilage to withstand the mechanical loading of the joint over time is unknown. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to systematically review studies of microfracture for OLT and descriptively analyze the outcome data reported to determine whether it is consistent from one study to another and able to be pooled for systematic review. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies that were published between January 1966 and June 2011 were included in the review. Only studies that reported data specifically on microfracture for treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus and written in English were included in this review. Results: Twenty-four studies were included in this systematic review. The categories of general demographics and study design were generally well reported (each over 80% of studies). Patient history and patient-reported outcome data were reported less (55%-66%). Clinical variables (48%) and imaging data (39%) were the least reported in studies. Conclusion: There were gross inconsistencies and an underreporting of data between studies such that pooling was deemed impossible. A concerted effort must be made by investigators to ensure that there is adequate reporting of data in studies of microfracture treatment for OLT. A set of guidelines to assist surgeons in reporting data may be useful for future research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available