Table 1.
Literature overview describing the incidence of concomitant chondral and/or osteochondral lesions after ankle fractures
| Author | Year | Study Design | n | Fracture Typee,f n (%) |
Assessment | Chondral lesions n with/without (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chen et al. [31] | 2019 | Retrospective | 36 |
23 (64) SER 13 (36) PER |
ASK | 26/36 (72) |
| 2 | Da Cunha et al. [32] | 2018 | Retrospective | 116 |
87 (75) SER 27 (23) PER 1 (1) SA 1 (1) PA |
ASK | 90/116 (78) |
| 3 | Zhang et al. [34]a | 2018 | Retrospective | 13 | 13 (100) SER | ASK | 8/13 (62) |
| 4 | Fuchs et al. [23] | 2016 | Retrospective | 42 |
26 (62) type B 16 (38) type C |
ASK | 26/42 (62) |
| 5 | Swart et al. [56] | 2014 | Prospective | 12 |
6 (50) bimalleolar 6 (50) trimalleolar |
ASK | 5/12 (42) |
| 6 | Yan et al. [33] | 2011 | Retrospective | 42 |
26 (62) SER 16 (38) PER |
ASK | 31/42 (74) |
| 7 | Stufkens et al. [15] | 2010 | Prospective | 109 |
16 (15) type A 74 (78) type B 19 (17) type C |
ASK | 233/288 (81) |
| 8 | Leontaritis et al. [13] | 2009 | Retrospective | 84 |
31 (37) PER 1 (1) SA 52 (62) SER |
ASK | 61/84 (73) |
| 9 | Boraiah et al. [12] | 2009 | Retrospective | 153 |
128 (84) SER 10 (6) SA 12 (8) PER 3 (2) others |
MRI | 26/153 (17) |
| 10 | Aktas et al. [1] | 2008 | Retrospective | 86 | 86 (100) SER | ASK | 24/86 (28) |
| 11 | Yoshimura et al. [27]b | 2008 | Prospective | 4 | 4 (100) Maisonneuve | ASK | 4/4 (100) |
| 12 | Takao et al. [55] | 2004 | Prospective | 41 |
13 (32) SER 28 (68) PA |
ASK | 30/41 (73) |
| 13 | Ono et al. [14] | 2004 | Prospective | 105 |
58 (55) SER 15 (14,5) SA 15 (14,5) PA 17 (16) PER |
ASK | 21/105 (20) |
| 14 | Loren et al. [24] | 2002 | Prospective | 48 |
24 (50) SER 10 (21) PER 5 (10) SA 4 (9) PA 5 (10) others |
ASK | 30/48 (63) |
| 15 | Thordarson et al. [18] | 2001 | Prospective | 9 |
7 (78) SER 2 (22) PER |
ASK | 8/9 (89) |
| 16 | Hintermann et al. [17] | 2000 | Prospective | 288 |
14 (5) type A 198 (69) type B 76 (26) type C |
ASK | 228/288 (79) |
| 17 | Sorrento et al. [3]c | 2000 | Retrospective | 50 | 50 (100) SER | Ins-pection | 19/50 (38) |
| 18 | Elsner et al. [42] | 1996 | Prospective | 21 |
2 (10) type A 17 (80) type B 2 (10) type C |
MRI | 7/21 (33) |
| 19 | Lantz et al. [30]d | 1991 | Prospective | 63 |
7 (11) type A 37 (59) type B 19 (30) type C |
ASK | 31/63 (49) |
n number of patients, ASK arthroscopy, MRI magnetic resonance imaging
aStudy including Wagstaffe Fractures
bStudy including Maisonneuve Fractures
cAssessment of cartilage damage was performed by inspecting the Talus in the setting of the open reduction and internal fixation
dStudy including assessment of cartilage damage on talus only
eLauge-Hansen classification [62]: SER supination external rotation PER pronation external rotation SA supination adduction PA pronation abduction
fDanis–Weber classification [63]: type A, type B and type C