Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-2
Arthroscopic Debridement vs Bone Marrow Stimulation for Small Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus: A Retrospective Matched Study of Outcomes for Lesions <60 mm
Osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs) are common ankle injuries, even small OLTs (≤100 mm2) cause pain, swelling, and reduced mobility if untreated, yet an optimal treatment standard remains elusive. This study aimed to compare the midterm outcomes of arthroscopic debridement (AD) and bone marrow stimulation (BMS) techniques for small-sized OLTs and to determine possible association between lesion size and clinical efficacy.
Methods:
Patients with small-sized OLTs who received AD or BMS were retrospectively analyzed, with a minimum follow-up of 36 months. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed, and 32 pairs of patients were matched. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), the Karlsson Score, Foot Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the ankle activity score (AAS) scores. In addition, a general linear model analysis was performed between patient demographics and Karlsson scores in 2 groups separately to detect potential risk factors.
Results:
Finally, 28 patients in the AD group and 30 patients in the BMS group completed the follow-up and were enrolled with a mean follow-up period of 67.63 ± 17.01 months. No preoperative demographic differences were found between the 2 groups (all P > .050). Both AD and BMS groups showed significant improvements in all clinical scores postoperatively. No significant intergroup differences were found in all postoperative scores except FAOS ADL (P = .030). Correlation analysis showed a strong correlation between lesion area and the postoperative Karlsson score in the AD group (r = −0.673, P < .001), with lesions greater than 61.13 mm2 associated with worse outcomes.
Conclusion:
Arthroscopic debridement and bone marrow stimulation showed similar improvements in clinical scores for small osteochondral lesions of the talus (<60 mm2). For larger lesions (>60 mm2), AD outcomes were worse; given the single-center, retrospective design and modest sample size, this data-derived cutoff is exploratory and requires external validation.
AhnJChoiJGJeongBO. Clinical outcomes after arthroscopic microfracture for osteochondral lesions of the talus are better in patients with decreased postoperative subchondral bone marrow edema. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(5):1570-1576. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06303-y
2.
AnwanderHVetterPKurzeCFarnCJKrauseFG. Evidence for operative treatment of talar osteochondral lesions: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev. 2022;7(7):460-469. doi:10.1530/EOR-21-0101
3.
BackusJDViensNANunleyJA. Arthroscopic treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus: microfracture and drilling versus debridement. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2012;21(4):218-222. doi:10.3113/jsoa.2012.0218
4.
BecherCMalahiasMAAliMMMaffulliNThermannH. Arthroscopic microfracture vs. arthroscopic autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis for the treatment of articular cartilage defects of the talus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(9):2731-2736. doi:10.1007/s00167-018-5278-7
5.
BertJM. Abandoning microfracture of the knee: has the time come?Arthroscopy. 2015;31(3):501-505. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.12.018
6.
CarlssonAM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain. 1983;16(1):87-101. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90088-X
7.
CelikDCobanOKilicogluO. Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used hip-, knee-, foot-, and ankle-specific questionnaires: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:44-57. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.017
8.
ChenHChevrierAHoemannCDSunJOuyangWBuschmannMD. Characterization of subchondral bone repair for marrow-stimulated chondral defects and its relationship to articular cartilage resurfacing. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(8):1731-1740. doi:10.1177/0363546511403282
9.
ChenHChevrierAHoemannCDSunJPicardGBuschmannMD. Bone marrow stimulation of the medial femoral condyle produces inferior cartilage and bone repair compared to the trochlea in a rabbit surgical model. J Orthop Res. 2013;31(11):1757-1764. doi:10.1002/jor.22422
10.
ChenWTangKYuanCZhouYTaoX. Intermediate results of large cystic medial osteochondral lesions of the talus treated with osteoperiosteal cylinder autografts from the medial tibia. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(8):1557-1564. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.02.027
11.
ChengXSuTFanX, et al. Concomitant subchondral bone cysts negatively affect clinical outcomes following arthroscopic bone marrow stimulation for osteochondral lesions of the talus. Arthroscopy. 2023;39(10):2191-2199.e1. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2023.03.029
12.
ChengXSuTLiJ, et al. Effect of cigarette smoking on postoperative outcomes after arthroscopic bone marrow stimulation for osteochondral lesions of the talus. Foot Ankle Int. 2024;45(8):862-869. doi:10.1177/10711007241250007
13.
DengEGaoLShiW, et al. Both magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography are reliable and valid in evaluating cystic osteochondral lesions of the talus. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(9):2325967120946697. doi:10.1177/2325967120946697
14.
DuramazABacaE. Microfracture provides better clinical results than debridement in the treatment of acute talar osteochondral lesions using arthroscopic assisted fixation of acute ankle fractures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(10):3089-3095. doi:10.1007/s00167-018-4963-x
15.
ElmholtSBHedeKCChristensenBBThomsenJSLindM. The effect of bone marrow stimulation for cartilage repair on the subchondral bone plate. Cartilage. 2022;13(1):19476035221074011. doi:10.1177/19476035221074011
16.
FaresAPicotBLopesR, et al. Indicators of return to sports at preinjury levels following surgery for chronic ankle instability: comparison of ALR-RSI, AOFAS, and Karlsson scores. Orthop J Sports Med. 2025;13(1):23259671241302078. doi:10.1177/23259671241302078
17.
GianakosALYasuiYFraserEJ, et al. The effect of different bone marrow stimulation techniques on human talar subchondral bone: a micro-computed tomography evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(10):2110-2117. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.03.028
18.
GobbiAFranciscoRALubowitzJHAllegraFCanataG. Osteochondral lesions of the talus: randomized controlled trial comparing chondroplasty, microfracture, and osteochondral autograft transplantation. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(10):1085-1092. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2006.05.016
19.
HalasiTKynsburgATallayABerkesI. Development of a new activity score for the evaluation of ankle instability. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(4):899-908. doi:10.1177/0363546503262181
20.
HuFYangSShiWLiuZGuoQ. Single-stage all-arthroscopic autologous cancellous bone transplantation in treatment of cystic osteochondral lesion of the talus. Arthrosc Tech. 2024;14(2):103208. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2024.103208
21.
HuntKJHurwitD. Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(16):e118(1)-e118(9). doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01476
22.
LealJHonesKMHaoKASlatonPTRoachRP. Arthroscopy and microfracture for osteochondritis dissecans of the capitellum in adolescent athletes shows favorable return to sport: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2024;40(4):1325-1339. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2023.08.075
23.
LiYBFanXZZhouGJ, et al. The severity of preoperative bone marrow oedema negatively influences short-term clinical outcomes following arthroscopic bone marrow stimulation for osteochondral lesions of the talus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2024;32(9):2440-2451. doi:10.1002/ksa.12355
24.
LubowitzJH. Arthroscopic microfracture may not be superior to arthroscopic debridement, but abrasion arthroplasty results are good, although not great. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(3):506. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.01.004
25.
Marin FerminTHovsepianJMD’HooghePPapakostasET. Arthroscopic debridement of osteochondral lesions of the talus: a systematic review. Foot (Edinb). 2021;49:101852. doi:10.1016/j.foot.2021.101852
26.
McLaughlinRJLelandDPBernardCD, et al. Both debridement and microfracture produce excellent results for osteochondritis dissecans lesions of the capitellum: a systematic review. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021;3(2):e593-e603. doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2020.10.002
27.
MiyakeJMasatomiT. Arthroscopic debridement of the humeral capitellum for osteochondritis dissecans: radiographic and clinical outcomes. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(8):1333-1338. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.05.024
28.
NakasaTIkutaYSumiiJNekomotoAKawabataSAdachiN. Clinical outcomes of osteochondral fragment fixation versus microfracture even for small osteochondral lesions of the talus. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(11):3019-3027. doi:10.1177/03635465221109596
29.
RamosARochaCMesnardM. The effect of osteochondral lesion size and ankle joint position on cartilage behavior - numerical and in vitro experimental results. Med Eng Phys. 2021;98:73-82. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2021.10.014
30.
RamponiLYasuiYMurawskiCD, et al. Lesion size is a predictor of clinical outcomes after bone marrow stimulation for osteochondral lesions of the talus: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(7):1698-1705. doi:10.1177/0363546516668292
31.
RiedlMLenzJEGoronzyJ, et al. Save the subchondral bone plate: debridement versus bone marrow stimulation in acetabular cartilage defects over 60 months of follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2024;32(9):2395-2405. doi:10.1002/ksa.12375
32.
RikkenQGHAaldersMBDahmenJSiereveltINStufkensSASKerkhoffsG. Ten-year survival rate of 82% in 262 cases of arthroscopic bone marrow stimulation for osteochondral lesions of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2024;106(14):1268-1276. doi:10.2106/JBJS.23.01186
33.
RoosEMBrandssonSKarlssonJ. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(10):788-794. doi:10.1177/107110070102201004
34.
SangiorgioAAndrioloLGersoffW, et al. Subchondral bone: an emerging target for the treatment of articular surface lesions of the knee. J Exp Orthop. 2024;11(3):e12098. doi:10.1002/jeo2.12098
35.
SavvaNJaburMDaviesMSaxbyT. Osteochondral lesions of the talus: results of repeat arthroscopic debridement. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28(6):669-673. doi:10.3113/FAI.2007.0669
36.
SeowDYasuiYHutchinsonIDHurleyETShimozonoYKennedyJG. The subchondral bone is affected by bone marrow stimulation: a systematic review of preclinical animal studies. Cartilage. 2019;10(1):70-81. doi:10.1177/1947603517711220
37.
SheuCFerkelRD. Athletic performance in the national basketball association after arthroscopic debridement of osteochondral lesions of the talus. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(1):2325967120970205. doi:10.1177/2325967120970205
38.
ShiWYangSXiongS, et al. Comparison of autologous osteoperiosteal and osteochondral transplantation for the treatment of large, medial cystic osteochondral lesions of the talus. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(3):769-777. doi:10.1177/03635465211068529
39.
StachelNOrthPZurakowskiD, et al. Subchondral drilling independent of drill hole number improves articular cartilage repair and reduces subchondral bone alterations compared with debridement in adult sheep. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(10):2669-2679. doi:10.1177/03635465221104775
40.
SuTChengXZhuY, et al. Patients with chronic lateral ankle instability and small osteochondral lesions of the talus obtain good postoperative results: a minimum 10-year follow-up with radiographic evidence. Foot Ankle Int. 2025;46(3):277-286. doi:10.1177/10711007241311858
41.
van BergenCJde LeeuwPAvan DijkCN. Potential pitfall in the microfracturing technique during the arthroscopic treatment of an osteochondral lesion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(2):184-187. doi:10.1007/s00167-008-0594-y
42.
WaltherMGottschalkOAurichM. Operative management of osteochondral lesions of the talus: 2024 recommendations of the working group ‘clinical tissue regeneration’ of the German Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology (DGOU). EFORT Open Rev. 2024;9(3):217-234. doi:10.1530/EOR-23-0075
43.
WangSLiBYuXWuHLiuL. Is ankle arthrodesis with an Ilizarov external fixator an effective treatment for septic ankle arthritis? A study with a minimum of 6 years of follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023;481(4):717-725. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000002418
44.
YangSDengEChenL, et al. Autologous osteoperiosteal transplantation achieves comparable repair effect and superior interface integration to autologous osteochondral transplantation in porcine osteochondral defects. J Orthop Translat. 2025;51:59-67. doi:10.1016/j.jot.2024.12.005
45.
YangSHuFShaoQ, et al. Autologous osteoperiosteal transplantation versus autologous osteochondral transplantation for large cystic osteochondral lesions of the medial talus: 2-year results from a prospective randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2025;53(11):2642-2651. doi:10.1177/03635465251361505
46.
YangSJingLChenL, et al. Favourable clinical, arthroscopic and radiographic outcomes after autologous osteoperiosteal transplantation for massive medial cystic osteochondral defects of the talus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023;31(8):3509-3516. doi:10.1007/s00167-023-07397-w
47.
YangSShaoQZhuY, et al. Surgical treatment for medium-sized cystic osteochondral lesions of the talus: autologous osteoperiosteal transplantation provides better clinical outcomes than bone marrow stimulation when cysts are deeper than 6 mm. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2025;33(2):750-759. doi:10.1002/ksa.12388
48.
ZhangMChenDWangQ, et al. Comparison of arthroscopic debridement and microfracture in the treatment of osteochondral lesion of talus. Front Surg. 2023;9:1072586. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.1072586
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
