Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27651981›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

Improved cartilage regeneration by implantation of acellular biomaterials after bone marrow stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.

Michiel W Pot, Veronica K Gonzales, Pieter Buma, Joanna IntHout, Toin H van Kuppevelt, Rob B M de Vries, Willeke F Daamen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michiel W PotDepartment of Biochemistry, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Veronica K GonzalesDepartment of Orthopedics, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Pieter BumaDepartment of Orthopedics, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Joanna IntHoutDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Toin H van Kuppevelt *Department of Biochemistry, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rob B M de Vries *SYRCLE (SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation), Central Animal Laboratory, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Willeke F DaamenDepartment of Biochemistry, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microfracture surgery may be applied to treat cartilage defects. During the procedure the subchondral bone is penetrated, allowing bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells to migrate towards the defect site and form new cartilage tissue. Microfracture surgery generally results in the formation of mechanically inferior fibrocartilage. As a result, this technique offers only temporary clinical improvement. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine may improve the outcome of microfracture surgery. Filling the subchondral defect with a biomaterial may provide a template for the formation of new hyaline cartilage tissue. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the current evidence for the efficacy of cartilage regeneration in preclinical models using acellular biomaterials implanted after marrow stimulating techniques (microfracturing and subchondral drilling) compared to the natural healing response of defects. The review aims to provide new insights into the most effective biomaterials, to provide an overview of currently existing knowledge, and to identify potential lacunae in current studies to direct future research. A comprehensive search was systematically performed in PubMed and EMBASE (via OvidSP) using search terms related to tissue engineering, cartilage and animals. Primary studies in which acellular biomaterials were implanted in osteochondral defects in the knee or ankle joint in healthy animals were included and study characteristics tabulated (283 studies out of 6,688 studies found). For studies comparing non-treated empty defects to defects containing implanted biomaterials and using semi-quantitative histology as outcome measure, the risk of bias (135 studies) was assessed and outcome data were collected for meta-analysis (151 studies). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, using cartilage regeneration as outcome measure on an absolute 0-100% scale. Implantation of acellular biomaterials significantly improved cartilage regeneration by 15.6% compared to non-treated empty defect controls. The addition of biologics to biomaterials significantly improved cartilage regeneration by 7.6% compared to control biomaterials. No significant differences were found between biomaterials from natural or synthetic origin or between scaffolds, hydrogels and blends. No noticeable differences were found in outcome between animal models. The risk of bias assessment indicated poor reporting for the majority of studies, impeding an assessment of the actual risk of bias. In conclusion, implantation of biomaterials in osteochondral defects improves cartilage regeneration compared to natural healing, which is further improved by the incorporation of biologics.

Indexed as

BiomaterialsCartilageCell-freeMicrofractureOsteochondralRegenerative medicineScaffold

Identifiers

PMID27651981
PMCPMC5018675
OpenAlexW2517589645

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.