Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26958315›Full record

ArticleCartilage2016

Comparative Study of Collagen versus Synthetic-Based Meniscal Scaffolds in Treating Meniscal Deficiency in Young Active Population.

Erica Bulgheroni, Alberto Grassi, Monica Campagnolo, Paolo Bulgheroni, Abhishek Mudhigere, Alberto Gobbi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cartilage, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. No differences in clinical outcome between CMI and Actifit meniscal scaffolds: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Meniscal Tear Repair: What's New in the Literature?Translational sports medicine · 2025
    Review
  13. The Current State of Meniscus Replacements.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Evaluation of Porous (Poly(lactide-Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Erica BulgheroniSan Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Alberto GrassiIstituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Monica CampagnoloInsubria University, Ospedale di Circolo Fondazione Macchi, Varese, Italy.
Paolo BulgheroniInsubria University, Ospedale di Circolo Fondazione Macchi, Varese, Italy.
Abhishek MudhigereOASI Bioresearch Foundation, Milan, Italy.
Alberto GobbiOASI Bioresearch Foundation, Milan, Italy.
OASI Bioresearch Foundation · ITOspedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi · ITIstituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2 different meniscal scaffolds in treating patients with irreparable partial medial meniscal tear and patients complaining of pain in the medial compartment of the knee due to a previous partial medial meniscectomy. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that both the scaffolds are effective in improving clinical outcomes in these patient populations. MATERIAL AND

methodsTwenty-eight patients underwent collagen-based medial meniscus implantation (CMI-Menaflex) and 25 with a second-generation scaffold (Actifit). All patients were assessed with Lysholm, Tegner scale, and MRI evaluation-preoperatively, at 6 months, at 12 moths, and followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. Second look arthroscopy and concomitant biopsy were performed in 7 and 12 patients of CMI and Actifit groups, respectively.

resultsThe CMI group at final follow-up showed improvement in Lysholm score from 58.4 ± 17.3 to 94.5 ± 6.0, while the Actifit group showed improvement from 67.0 ± 15.7 to 90.3 ± 13.1; the improvement was statistically significant in both the groups but intergroup difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.1061). Tegner Activity Scale score improved in both the groups, but intergroup difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5918). MRI evaluation showed in situ scaffold and no progression of degenerative arthritis in both the groups at final follow-up. Histological evaluation showed more fibrous tissue with blood vessels in the CMI group and the Actift group showed avascular cartilaginous features.

conclusionBoth the scaffolds are effective in improving patients' symptoms and joint function at short-term follow-up.

Indexed as

kneemeniscal injurymeniscuspolarized light microscopyscaffolds

Identifiers

PMID26958315
PMCPMC4749749
OpenAlexW2282460909

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.