|
Citation
|
Andriolo L, Marin Fermin T, Chiari Gaggia GMM, Serner A, Kon E, Papakostas E, Massey A, Verdonk P, Filardo G. Cartilage 2024; ePub(ePub): ePub. |
|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and analyze clinical outcomes and return-to-sport after surgical management of cartilage injuries in football [soccer] players.
DESIGN: A systematic literature review was performed in August 2023 on PubMed, WebOfScience, and Cochrane Library to collect studies on surgical strategies for cartilage lesions in football players.
METHODological quality and risk of bias were assessed with the modified Coleman Methodology score and RoB2 and RoBANS2 tools.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies on 409 football players (86% men, 14% women) were included: nine prospective and two retrospective case series, one randomized controlled trial, one prospective comparative study, one case report, and one survey. Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) techniques were the most documented. The lesion size influenced the treatment choice: debridement was used for small lesions (1.1 cm(2)), BMS, osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT), matrix-assisted autologous chondrocytes transplantation (MACT), and scaffold-augmented BMS for small/mid-size lesions (2.2-3.0 cm(2)), and autologous chondrocytes implantation (ACI) for larger lesions (5.8 cm(2)). The surgical options yielded different results in terms of clinical outcome and return-to-sport, with fastest recovery for debridement and scaffold-augmented BMS. The current evidence is limited with large methodological quality variation (modified Coleman Methodology score 43.5/100) and a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making in cartilage injuries seems to privilege early return-to-sport, making debridement and microfractures the most used techniques. The lesion size influences the treatment choice. However, the current evidence is limited. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and establish a case-based approach to treat cartilage injuries in football players based on the specific patient and lesion characteristics and the treatments' potential in terms of both return-to-sport and long-term results.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level IV.
Language: en |