No abstract

Given articular cartilage has a limited repair potential, untreated osteochondral lesions of the ankle can lead to debilitating symptoms and joint deterioration necessitating joint replacement. While a wide range of reparative and restorative surgical techniques have been developed to treat osteochondral lesions of the ankle, there is no consensus in the literature regarding which is the ideal treatment. Tissue engineering strategies, encompassing stem cells, somatic cells, biomaterials, and stimulatory signals (biological and mechanical), have a potentially valuable role in the treatment of osteochondral lesions. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are an attractive resource for regenerative medicine approaches, given their ability to self‐renew and differentiate into multiple stromal cell types, including chondrocytes. Although MSCs have demonstrated significant promise in in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies, their success in treating osteochondral lesions of the ankle is inconsistent, necessitating further clinical trials to validate their application. This review highlights the role of MSCs in cartilage regeneration and how the application of biomaterials and stimulatory signals can enhance chondrogenesis. The current treatments for osteochondral lesions of the ankle using regenerative medicine strategies are reviewed to provide a clinical context. The challenges for cartilage regeneration, along with potential solutions and safety concerns are also discussed.

Background: Tourniquet use is ubiquitous in orthopaedic surgery to create a bloodless field and to facilitate safe surgery, however, we know of the potential complications that can occur as a result of prolonged tourniquet time. Experimental and clinical research has helped define the safe time limits but there is not much literature specific to foot and ankle surgery. Methods: A retrospective review of the postoperative course of patients with prolonged tourniquet time (longer than 180 min) for foot and ankle procedures was done. Data related to the patient factors and the surgical procedure was collected. The length of stay, re-admissions and complications were the important indicators of the individual patient's recovery. Results: Twenty patients were identified with longer than 180-min tourniquet times for complex foot and ankle procedures. The average uninterrupted tourniquet time was 191 min. Eight of the twenty procedures were revision surgeries. The average length of stay was 3 days and there were no readmissions within 30 days. Eight patients (40%) had at least one recorded complication. The complications seen in this group were transient sensory loss, wound issues, superficial infection, ongoing pain and non-union. Conclusions: This case series has not revealed any major systemic complications resulting from the prolonged tourniquet such as pulmonary embolism or renal dysfunction. Unlike past literature on knee procedures with extended tourniquet times, no major nerve palsies were seen in our patient group. Our understanding of the local and systemic effects of tourniquet is not complete and this study demonstrates that the complications do not necessarily increase in a linear fashion in relation to the tourniquet time.

TAR should aim to be outpatient surgery as the literature, and data demonstrating scope for improvement in LOS, suggest this should be possible.

No abstract