BackgroundThe management of articular cartilage defects presents many clinical challenges due to its avascular, aneural and alymphatic nature. Bone marrow stimulation techniques, such as microfracture, are the most frequently used method in clinical practice however the resulting mixed fibrocartilage tissue which is inferior to native hyaline cartilage. Other methods have shown promise but are far from perfect. There is an unmet need and growing interest in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering to improve the outcome for patients requiring cartilage repair. Many published reviews on cartilage repair only list human clinical trials, underestimating the wealth of basic sciences and animal studies that are precursors to future research. We therefore set out to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the translation of stem cell therapy to explore what research had been carried out at each of the stages of translation from bench-top (in vitro), animal (pre-clinical) and human studies (clinical) and assemble an evidence-based cascade for the responsible introduction of stem cell therapy for cartilage defects.Main body of abstractThis review was conducted in accordance to PRISMA guidelines using CINHAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases from 1st January 1900 to 30th June 2015. In total, there were 2880 studies identified of which 252 studies were included for analysis (100 articles for in vitro studies, 111 studies for animal studies; and 31 studies for human studies). There was a huge variance in cell source in pre-clinical studies both of terms of animal used, location of harvest (fat, marrow, blood or synovium) and allogeneicity. The use of scaffolds, growth factors, number of cell passages and number of cells used was hugely heterogeneous.Short conclusionsThis review offers a comprehensive assessment of the evidence behind the translation of basic science to the clinical practice of cartilage repair. It has revealed a lack of connectivity between the in vitro, pre-clinical and human data and a patchwork quilt of synergistic evidence. Drivers for progress in this space are largely driven by patient demand, surgeon inquisition and a regulatory framework that is learning at the same pace as new developments take place.

Level III, retrospective case control study.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of modern total ankle replacements (TARs) to determine the survivorship, outcome, complications, radiological findings and range of movement, in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) of the ankle who undergo this procedure. We used the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration, which uses risk of bias profiling to assess the quality of papers in favour of a domain-based approach. Continuous outcome scores were pooled across studies using the generic inverse variance method and the random-effects model was used to incorporate clinical and methodological heterogeneity. We included 58 papers (7942 TARs) with an interobserver reliability (Kappa) for selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias of between 0.83 and 0.98. The overall survivorship was 89% at ten years with an annual failure rate of 1.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7 to 1.6). The mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score changed from 40 (95% CI 36 to 43) pre-operatively to 80 (95% CI 76 to 84) at a mean follow-up of 8.2 years (7 to 10) (p < 0.01). Radiolucencies were identified in up to 23% of TARs after a mean of 4.4 years (2.3 to 9.6). The mean total range of movement improved from 23° (95% CI 19 to 26) to 34° (95% CI 26 to 41) (p = 0.01). Our study demonstrates that TAR has a positive impact on patients' lives, with benefits lasting ten years, as judged by improvement in pain and function, as well as improved gait and increased range of movement. However, the quality of evidence is weak and fraught with biases and high quality randomised controlled trials are required to compare TAR with other forms of treatment such as fusion.

There has been a trend toward higher levels of evidence in foot and ankle surgery literature over a decade, but the differences did not reach significance.

ObjectiveTo examine how patients decide between ankle fusion and ankle replacement in end-stage ankle arthritis.DesignPurposive patient selection, semistructured interviews, thematic analysis.SettingRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.Participants14 patients diagnosed with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis.ResultsWe interviewed 6 men and 8 women with a mean age of 58 years (range 41–83). All had opted for surgery after failure of at least 6 months of conservative management, sequentially trading-off daily activities to limit the evolving pain. To decide between two offered treatments of ankle fusion and total ankle replacement (TAR), three major sources informed the patients’ decision-making process: their surgeon, peers and the internet. The treating surgeon was viewed as the most reliable and influential source of information. Information gleaned from other patients was also important, but with questionable reliability, as was information from the internet, both of which invariably required validation by the surgeon and in some cases the general practitioner.ConclusionsPatients seek knowledge from a wealth of sources including the internet, web forums and other patients. While they leverage each of these sources to guide decision-making, the most important and influential factor in governing how patients decide on any particular surgical intervention is their surgeon. A high quality doctor–patient relationship, coupled with clear, balanced and complete information is essential to enable shared decision-making to become a standard model of care.

Subtalar arthroereisis has a controversial history and has previously been associated with high failure rates and excessive complications. A database search for outcomes of arthroereisis for the treatment of symptomatic paediatric flexible pes planus provided 24 articles which were included in this review, with a total of 2550 feet operated on. Post-operative patient-reported outcome measures recorded marked improvement. Patient satisfaction was reported as excellent in 79.9%, and poor in 5.3%. All radiological measurements demonstrated improvement towards the normal range following arthroereisis, as did hindfoot valgus, supination, dorsiflexion and Viladot grade. Complications were reported in 7.1% of cases, with a reoperation rate of 3.1%. Arthroereisis as a treatment for symptomatic paediatric flexible pes planus produces favourable outcomes and high patient satisfaction rates with a reasonable risk profile. There is still a great deal of negativity and literature highlighting the complications and failures of arthroereisis, especially for older implants. The biggest flaws in the collective literature are the lack of high-quality prospective studies, a paucity of long-term data and the heterogeneity of utilized outcome measures between studies. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:118-129. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200076

IntroductionTotal ankle replacement (TAR) or ankle arthrodesis (fusion) is the main surgical treatments for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis (OA). The popularity of ankle replacement is increasing while ankle fusion rates remain static. Both treatments have efficacy but to date all studies comparing the 2 have been observational without randomisation, and there are no published guidelines as to the most appropriate management. The TAR versus arthrodesis (TARVA) trial aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of TAR against ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of end-stage ankle OA in patients aged 50–85 years.Methods and analysisTARVA is a multicentre randomised controlled trial that will randomise 328 patients aged 50–85 years with end-stage ankle arthritis. The 2 arms of the study will be TAR or ankle arthrodesis with 164 patients in each group. Up to 16 UK centres will participate. Patients will have clinical assessments and complete questionnaires before their operation and at 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after surgery. The primary clinical outcome of the study is a validated patient-reported outcome measure, the Manchester Oxford foot questionnaire, captured preoperatively and 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes include quality-of-life scores, complications, revision, reoperation and a health economic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol has been approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee (London, Bloomsbury 14/LO/0807). This manuscript is based on V.5.0 of the protocol. The trial findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNCT02128555.

No abstract