TREATMENT OF OSTEOCHONDRAL DEFECTS OF THE ANKLE JOINT THROUGH AUTOLOGOUS OSTEOCHONDRAL TRANSPLANTATION OR AUTOLOGOUS CHONDROCYTE TRANSPLANTATION. COMPARATIVE RESULTS

Abstract

Aim of study: Comparison of clinical and radiological results of the applied methods.

Material and method: 20 patients with osteochondritis dissecans of the talus were treated. Autologous chondrocyte transplantation was applied to a group of 10 patients (Group A) and autologous osteochondral transplantation to the rest 10 patients (Group B).Group A: Average-age=30,8 years, -follow up time= 33,6 (12–48) months, -lesion size= 20×16,2 (35–15 × 25–15) mm and depth =7 (20–5) mmGroup B: Average –age =33, 7 years, follow up time =32,4 (12–48) months, – lesion size=16,5×15 (25–10 × 20–10) mm and depth=4 (5–3) mm.All patients underwent clinical und radiological investigation and the symptoms were classified in accordance with the Finsen classification. Group A was treated with autologous chondrocyte and Group B with autologous osteochondral transplantation. Osteotomy of the medial or lateral malleolus was necessary by 6 Group A – patients and 4 Group B – patients. Postoperative treatment : Non-weight bearing for 6 weeks, continuous passive motion of the joint, clinical and radiological follow up 3rd, 6th, 12th and yearly basis

Results: Postoperatively the average Finsen score showed for Group A an improvement from 3,5 (very bad) to 1,1 (excellent) and for Group B from 3,6 (very bad) to 1 (excellent). MRI follow up showed defect coverage by 7 patients of Group A and 9 patients of Group B after 12 months. Second look arthroscopy was performed by 4 patient of Group A and 3 patients of Group B showing full coverage of the defect site. Complications: persisting swelling for an average time of 2,7 months in Group A and 4,3 months in Group B. Additionally 10 degrees loss of joint extension in 4 patients of Group A and 3 patients of Group B.

Conclusion: Autologous chondrocyte transplantation as well as autologous osteochondral transplantation present very good clinical results. As methods of articular surface restoration they have their advantages and disadvantages playing an important role in chosing one of them, in combination always with the surgeons philosophy. The existence of these methods is important in influencing the course of the ankle joint towards a good prognosis, in cases of osteochondral lesion. Further investigation is necessary.