ArticleInternational orthopaedics2016
Analysis of the autologous chondrocyte quality of matrix-based autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee joint.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Collagenase treatment of cartilaginous matrix promotes fusion of adjacent cartilage.Regenerative therapy · 2020Article
- Mechanotransduction and Stiffness-Sensing: Mechanisms and Opportunities to Control Multiple Molecular Aspects of Cell Phenotype as a Design Cornerstone of Cell-Instructive Biomaterials for Articular Cartilage Repair.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Effects of cell phenotype and seeding density on the chondrogenic capacity of human osteoarthritic chondrocytes in type I collagen scaffolds.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- A 5-mC Dot Blot Assay Quantifying the DNA Methylation Level of Chondrocyte Dedifferentiation In Vitro.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2017Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMatrix based autologous chondrocyte implantation is an established method for treatment of full cartilage defects in the knee joint, but little is known about the influence of the implanted autologous chondrocyte quality and its clinical value. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of the gene expression of the implanted autologous chondrocytes on the clinical outcomes in the follow-up period of three years.
methodsBiological parameters of the implanted chondrocytes were analysed histologically and immunohistologically. An analysis of the gene expression of the relevant chondrogenic dedifferentiation markers was performed as well. In order to detect the rate of apoptosis, we analysed specific apoptosis markers. To evaluate the clinical outcome, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and the visual analogue scale (VAS) were used pre-operatively and after 0.5, one, two and three years.
resultsSignificantly improved clinical scores were observed. The subjective IKDC score increased from 50.6 ± 20.7 points to 69.3 ± 26.1 points at three years (p = 0.001). The implanted chondrocytes showed a typical expression of the chondrogenic markers with a high rate of collagen type II expression without dedifferentiation. The analysed differentiation, dedifferentiation and apoptosis markers showed no influence on the clinical outcome.
conclusionsThe implanted autologous chondrocytes have a high chondrogenic quality with a high rate of collagen type II expression without dedifferentiation. An influence of differentiation, de-differentiation and apoptosis marker gene expression on the clinical outcomes could not be found in a follow-up period of three years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series; Level of evidence, 3.
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.