SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Operative treatments for osteochondral lesions of the talus in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Tan H., Li A., Qiu X., Cui Y., Tang W., Wang G.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 375 on Cartilage Damage, Ankle Injury, published in Medicine (Baltimore) (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Meta-analysis
Journal
Medicine (Baltimore) (2021)
Reported sample size
375
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34160396
PMCID
PMC8238309
DOI
10.1097/md.0000000000026330
Citations
10

Abstract (original English)

Purpose This systematic review aimed to identify the available evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and safety of various operative treatments in adult patients with osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT). Materials and methods The PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception date to September 2019. Two reviewers selected the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs assessing the comparative effectiveness and safety of various operative treatments for OLT. The meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3. Results Eight studies (1 RCT and 7 non-RCTs) with 375 patients were included in this review. The difference in the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score between the cartilage repair and replacement was not significant. The cartilage regeneration with or without cartilage repair had significant superiority in improving the AOFAS score compared with the cartilage repair. The difference in the magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score between the cartilage repair and replacement and between cartilage repair and cartilage repair plus regeneration was significant. Conclusions Cartilage regeneration and cartilage repair plus regeneration had significant superiority in improving the ankle function and radiological evaluation of OL

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence
Cartilage, ArticularTalusAnkle JointChondrocytesHumansOsteochondritisMagnetic Resonance ImagingTreatment OutcomeBone Marrow TransplantationTransplantation, Autologous
Ankle & FootCartilage DamageAnkle Injury
View on PubMedFull text on Europe PMCDOI

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

View all: topic “operative treatments osteochondral”View all: author tanView all: year 2021

Related research