Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27228174›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Does Not Prevent or Delay Progression of Knee Osteoarthritis.

Catherine Van Der Straeten, Paul Byttebier, Annelies Eeckhoudt, Jan Victor

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Meniscal allograft transplantation after meniscectomy: clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Catherine Van Der StraetenMusculoskeletal Sciences and Technology, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5659-0853
Paul ByttebierDepartment Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Annelies EeckhoudtDepartment Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Jan VictorDepartment Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University Hospital · BEImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeniscal tears are common knee injuries. Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been advocated to alleviate symptoms and delay osteoarthritis (OA) after meniscectomy. We investigated (1) the long-term outcome of MAT as a treatment of symptomatic meniscectomy, (2) most important factors affecting survivorship and (3) OA progression.

methodsFrom 1989 till 2013, 329 MAT were performed in 313 patients. Clinical and radiographic results and MAT survival were evaluated retrospectively. Failure was defined as conversion to knee arthroplasty (KA) or total removal of the MAT.

resultsMean age at surgery was 33 years (15-57); 60% were males. No-to-mild cartilage damage was found in 156 cases, moderate-to-severe damage in 130. Simultaneous procedures in 118 patients included cartilage procedures, osteotomy or ACL-reconstruction. At a mean follow-up of 6.8 years (0.2-24.3years), 5 patients were deceased and 48 lost (14.6%), 186 MAT were in situ (56.5%) whilst 90 (27.4%) had been removed, including 63 converted to a KA (19.2%). Cumulative allograft survivorship was 15.1% (95% CI:13.9-16.3) at 24.0 years. In patients <35 years at surgery, survival was significantly better (24.1%) compared to ≥35 years (8.0%) (p = 0.017). In knees with no-to-mild cartilage damage more allografts survived (43.0%) compared to moderate-to-severe damage (6.6%) (p = 0.003). Simultaneous osteotomy significantly deteriorated survival (0% at 24.0 years) (p = 0.010). 61% of patients underwent at least one additional surgery (1-11) for clinical symptoms after MAT. Consecutive radiographs showed significant OA progression at a mean of 3.8 years (p<0.0001). Incremental Kellgren-Lawrence grade was +1,1 grade per 1000 days (2,7yrs).

conclusionsMAT did not delay or prevent tibiofemoral OA progression. 19.2% were converted to a knee prosthesis at a mean of 10.3 years. Patients younger than 35 with no-to-mild cartilage damage may benefit from MAT for relief of symptoms (survivorship 51.9% at 20.2 years), but patients and healthcare payers and providers should be aware of the high number of surgical re-interventions.

Indexed as

Bone TransplantationAdolescentAdultAllograftsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMenisci, TibialMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneePrognosisRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27228174
PMCPMC4881946
OpenAlexW2406893579

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.