Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26914881›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2015

Experimental articular cartilage repair in the Göttingen minipig: the influence of multiple defects per knee.

Bjørn Borsøe Christensen, Casper Bindzus Foldager, Morten Lykke Olesen, Louise Vingtoft, Jan Hendrik Duedal Rölfing, Steffen Ringgaard, Martin Lind

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The functionality and translatability of neocartilage constructs are improved with the combination of fluid-induced shear stress and bioactive factors.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bjørn Borsøe ChristensenOrthopedic Research Laboratory, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, building 1A, 1. Floor, Aarhus, Denmark. bjornbc@gmail.com.
Casper Bindzus FoldagerOrthopedic Research Laboratory, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, building 1A, 1. Floor, Aarhus, Denmark. foldager@clin.au.dk.
Morten Lykke OlesenOrthopedic Research Laboratory, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, building 1A, 1. Floor, Aarhus, Denmark. mlol@clin.au.dk.
Louise VingtoftOrthopedic Research Laboratory, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, building 1A, 1. Floor, Aarhus, Denmark. louise_vingtoft@hotmail.com.
Jan Hendrik Duedal RölfingOrthopedic Research Laboratory, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, building 1A, 1. Floor, Aarhus, Denmark. jan.roelfing@clin.au.dk.
Steffen RinggaardMR Research Center, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Denmark. steffen@clin.au.dk.
Martin LindDepartment of Sports Traumatology, Department of orthopedic surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. martilin@rm.dk.
Aarhus University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA gold standard treatment for articular cartilage injuries is yet to be found, and a cost-effective and predictable large animal model is needed to bridge the gap between in vitro studies and clinical studies. Ideally, the animal model should allow for testing of clinically relevant treatments and the biological response should be reproducible and comparable to humans. This allows for a reliable translation of results to clinical studies.This study aimed at verifying the Göttingen minipig as a pre-clinical model for articular cartilage repair by testing existing clinical cartilage repair techniques and evaluating the use of two defects per knee.

methodsSixteen fully mature Göttingen minipigs were used. The minipigs received bilateral trochlear osteochondral drill-hole defects or chondral defects (Ø 6 mm), either one defect per knee or two defects per knee. The defects were treated with one of the following: Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI), microfracture (MFx), autologous-dual-tissue transplantation (ADTT), autologous bone graft, autologous cartilage chips. Empty chondral and osteochondral defects were used as controls. MRI and CT were performed 3 and 6 month, histology was performed 6 month postoperative.

resultsThe repair tissue varied in morphology from non-cartilaginous fibrous tissue to fibrocartilaginous tissue as seen on MRI, CT and histology at 6 month. The worst results were seen in the empty controls, while the best results were achieved with the MACI and ADTT treatment. The use of two defects per knee did not have any significant effect on the repair response.

conclusionThe outcomes of the applied treatments were consistent with the outcomes in clinical studies and it was possible to apply two defects per knee. The Göttingen minipig model was easy to handle, cost-effective and provided predictable outcome. Based on this study the use of two defects per knee, one in the medial and one in the lateral trochlear facet, in male Göttingen minipigs is recommended.

Indexed as

Animal modelArticular cartilageBone graftCartilage chipsGöttingen minipig

Identifiers

PMID26914881
PMCPMC4538720
OpenAlexW1571856265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.