Use of Extracellular Matrix Cartilage Allograft May Improve Infill of the Defects in Bone Marrow Stimulation for Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus

To evaluate the effectiveness of extracellular matrix cartilage allograft (EMCA) as an adjuvant to bone marrow stimulation (BMS) compared with BMS alone in the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus. A retrospective cohort study comparing patients treated with BMS with EMCA (BMS-EMCA group) and BMS alone (BMS group) between 2013 and 2019 was undertaken. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) preoperatively and postoperatively. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were evaluated using the modified Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue score. Comparisons between groups were made with the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Twenty-four patients underwent BMS with EMCA (BMS-EMCA group), and 24 patients underwent BMS alone (BMS group). The mean age was 40.8 years (range, 19-60 years) in the BMS-EMCA group and 47.8 years (range, 24-60 years) in the BMS group (P = .060). The mean follow-up time was 20.0 months (range, 12-36 months) in the BMS-EMCA group and 26.9 months (range, 12-55 months) in the BMS group (P = .031). Both groups showed significant improvements in all FAOS subscales. No significant differences between groups were found in all postoperative FAOS values. The mean Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue score in the BMS-EMCA group was higher (76.3 vs 66.3) but not statistically significant (P = .176). The MRI analysis showed that 87.5% of the BMS-EMCA patients had complete infill of the defect with repair tissue; however, fewer than half of the BMS patients (46.5%) had complete infill (P = .015). Conclusions: BMS with EMCA is an effective treatment strategy for osteochondral lesions of the talus and provides better cartilage infill in the defect on MRI. However, this did not translate to improved functional outcomes compared with BMS alone in the short term. Additionally, according to analysis of the minimal clinically important difference, there was no significant difference in clinical function scoring between the 2 groups postoperatively. Level III, retrospective comparative study.