Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25604876›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2015

What is the effect of matrices on cartilage repair? A systematic review.

James D Wylie, Melissa K Hartley, Ashley L Kapron, Stephen K Aoki, Travis G Maak

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Role of Arthroscopy in Various Ankle Disorders.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James D WylieDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
Melissa K Hartley
Ashley L Kapron
Stephen K Aoki
Travis G Maak
University of Utah · USS.P.E.C.I.E.S. · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArticular cartilage has minimal endogenous ability to undergo repair. Multiple chondral restoration strategies have been attempted with varied results. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of our review was to determine: (1) Does articular chondrocyte transplantation or matrix-assisted articular chondrocyte transplantation provide better patient-reported outcomes scores, MRI morphologic measurements, or histologic quality of repair tissue compared with microfracture in prospective comparative studies of articular cartilage repair; and (2) which available matrices for matrix-assisted articular chondrocyte transplantation show the best patient-reported outcomes scores, MRI morphologic measurements, or histologic quality of repair tissue?

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, and MEDLINE from March 2004 to February 2014 using keywords determined to be important for articular cartilage repair, including "cartilage", "chondral", "cell source", "chondrocyte", "matrix", "augment", "articular", "joint", "repair", "treatment", "regeneration", and "restoration" to find articles related to cell-based articular cartilage repair of the knee. The articles were reviewed by two authors (JDW, MKH), our study exclusion criteria were applied, and articles were determined to be relevant (or not) to the research questions. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) scale was used to judge the quality of nonrandomized manuscripts used in this review and the Jadad score was used to judge the quality of randomized trials. Seventeen articles were reviewed for the first research question and 83 articles were reviewed in the second research question from 301 articles identified in the original systematic search. The average MINORS score was 9.9 (62%) for noncomparative studies and 16.1 (67%) for comparative studies. The average Jadad score was 2.3 for the randomized studies.

resultsArticular chondrocyte transplantation shows better patient-reported outcomes at 5 years in patients without chronic symptoms preoperatively compared with microfracture (p = 0.026). Matrix-assisted articular chondrocyte transplantation consistently showed improved patient-reported functional outcomes compared with microfracture (p values ranging from < 0.001 to 0.029). Hyalograft C(®) (Anika Therapeutics Inc, Bedford, MA, USA) and Chondro-gide(®) (Genzyme Biosurgery, Kastrup, Denmark) are the matrices with the most published evidence in the literature, but no studies comparing different matrices met our inclusion criteria, because the literature consists only of uncontrolled case series.

conclusionsMatrix-assisted articular chondrocyte transplantation leads to better patient-reported outcomes in cartilage repair compared with microfracture; however, future prospective research is needed comparing different matrices to determine which products optimize cartilage repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Tissue ScaffoldsWound HealingAnimalsCartilage, ArticularChondrocytesFractures, BoneHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingOrthopedic ProceduresTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25604876
PMCPMC4385356
OpenAlexW2043343620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.