Functional and Radiographic Outcomes Following Repair of Osteochondral Lesions After Ankle Fracture with Arthrex BioCartilage and Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate compared to Microfracture
Authors: Stal Drew N. , Eble Stephanie K. , Hansen Oliver B. , Chrea Bopha , Drakos Mark C. 
Published: March 2021

Category: Arthroscopy; Basic Sciences/Biologics; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: There has been an increasing role for arthroscopy in ankle fracture fixation, particularly in assessing osteochondral lesions (OCL). Initial cartilage damage has been found to be an independent risk factor for post-traumatic ankle arthritis. Rates of osteochondral injury with ankle fracture remain varied, but have been reported up to 62-80%. Treatment for osteochondral injuries classically included debridement alone or debridement with microfracture. Recently, new biologic augments have come to market, including BioCartilage (Arthrex): a mixture of cadaveric articular cartilage extracellular matrix. This has been used in conjunction with bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). To date, no study has evaluated the outcomes of utilizing BioCartilage in the treatment of osteochondral lesions, or in comparison to microfracture alone, in conjunction with ankle fracture fixation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult patients (age > 18) undergoing operative ankle fracture or syndesmotic fixation with concomitant ankle arthroscopy utilizing our Foot and Ankle Registry. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to data collection. Patient demographic data, laterality, fracture pattern and OCL size were documented. Those with full-thickness lesions requiring treatment were divided into groups based on the use of Biocartilage + BMAC or microfracture alone. Exclusion criteria included pediatric patients, distal tibia intra-articular, and open fractures. Outcome scores for pre- and postoperative patient reported outcome measures (PROMIS) were recorded, with a minimum 6- month follow up. Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) scoring was performed for those with postoperative MRIs to evaluate OCL healing. We also included a group that had ankle fracture fixation and arthroscopy but without any osteochondral lesion to serve as a control. Results: 28 patients were treated with Biocartilage/BMAC; 19 with preoperative and 17 with postoperative PROMIS. 41 patients had microfracture; 20 with preoperative and 18 with postoperative PROMIS. 75 patients were identified in the non-OCL group; 60 with preoperative and 45 with postoperative PROMIS. Average follow-up was 20.61 months. There were no significant differences in postoperative PROMIS scores between the two treatment groups in all sub-categories. When comparing each treatment group to the control, there was a statistically significant increase in pre to postoperative global physical health scores for the non-OCL group compared to Biocartilage/BMAC. Postoperative MRIs were obtained in 12/28 patients with Biocartilage/BMAC and 10 /41 with microfracture. There was no significant difference between either group in overall MOCART scores or individual scoring categories. Conclusion: The role for arthroscopy in ankle fracture fixation is evolving, as is the treatment of identifiable osteochondral lesions. We sought to compare a novel biologic technique of Biocartilage and BMAC with microfracture for OCL management. Our results demonstrated no significant difference between treatments for postoperative PROMIS and MOCART scores. Outcome measures did not differ significantly when compared to our control group. Unfortunately, complete PROMIS and MOCART data was lacking in each group, limiting the ability to draw definitive conclusions. However, we believe this is a positive first step in understanding the role in treating osteochondral lesions associated with ankle fractures.