Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26069706›Full record

ArticleCartilage2015

TruFit Plug for Repair of Osteochondral Defects-Where Is the Evidence? Systematic Review of Literature.

J Verhaegen, S Clockaerts, G J V M Van Osch, J Somville, P Verdonk, P Mertens

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cartilage, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Osteochondral Injury, Management and Tissue Engineering Approaches.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Agili-C implant promotes the regenerative capacity of articular cartilage defects in an ex vivo model.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

J VerhaegenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
S ClockaertsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium ; Department of Orthopaedics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
G J V M Van OschDepartment of Orthopaedics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J SomvilleDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
P VerdonkDepartment Orthopaedic Surgery, Monica Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium ; Faculty of Medicine, Ghent University, Belgium.
P MertensDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, ZNA Middelheim Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.
University of Antwerp · BEErasmus MC · NLGhent University · BEZNA Middelheim Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTreatment of osteochondral defects remains a challenge in orthopedic surgery. The TruFit plug has been investigated as a potential treatment method for osteochondral defects. This is a biphasic scaffold designed to stimulate cartilage and subchondral bone formation. The aim of this study is to investigate clinical, radiological, and histological efficacy of the TruFit plug in restoring osteochondral defects in the joint.

designWe performed a systematic search in five databases for clinical trials in which patients were treated with a TruFit plug for osteochondral defects. Studies had to report clinical, radiological, or histological outcome data. Quality of the included studies was assessed.

resultsFive studies describe clinical results, all indicating improvement at follow-up of 12 months compared to preoperative status. However, two studies reporting longer follow-up show deterioration of early improvement. Radiological evaluation indicates favorable MRI findings regarding filling of the defect and incorporation with adjacent cartilage at 24 months follow-up, but conflicting evidence exists on the properties of the newly formed overlying cartilage surface. None of the included studies showed evidence for bone ingrowth. The few histological data available confirmed these results.

conclusionThere are no data available that support superiority or equality of TruFit compared to conservative treatment or mosaicplasty/microfracture. Further investigation is needed to improve synthetic biphasic implants as therapy for osteochondral lesions. Randomized controlled clinical trials comparing TruFit plugs with an established treatment method are needed before further clinical use can be supported.

Indexed as

cartilageosteochondral defectsynthetic scaffoldTruFit plug

Identifiers

PMID26069706
PMCPMC4462248
OpenAlexW2169038586

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.