ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Surgical technique of an innovative patient-specific metal implant for talar osteochondral lesions.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgical technique of an innovative patient-specific metal implant for talar osteochondral lesions.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Treatment strategies for osteochondral defects (OCDs) of the ankle have substantially increased over the last decade. The development of a small metallic implant to fill the defect has led to the second-generation patient-specific metal implant (Episealer Talus® Implant) designed based on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging images. Methods: There is a pool of patients falling into the so-called 'treatment gap', a grey zone composed of active patients with symptomatic OCDs in the context of an otherwise healthy joint, or patients with a failed primary treatment. To minimize the risk of perioperative complications, there are a series of tips and tricks that can be considered. Results: Correct execution of the operative approach, proper positioning of the guides, posterior capsule and deep deltoid ligament release and the use of Hintermann spreader allow a perfect visualization of the OCDs minimizing the risk of iatrogenic lesions. Correct execution of the medial malleolus osteotomy, release of soft tissue, proper triplanar alignment of the custom-made guide, its strong stabilization during the reaming and the use of vigorous washes minimizes the potential damage on healthy cartilage. Correct sinking of the implant is crucial; the goal is to place the Episealer Talus at least 0.5 mm below the cartilage surface. Filling a large subchondral cyst with the cancellous bone can be useful to provide better stability of the implant. Conclusion: Episealer Talus for talar OCDs possibly represents an additional tool for surgeons and patients. It is important to avoid mistakes during implant placement. Levels of Evidence: Level V, expert opinion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.