Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28231642›Full record

ReviewKnee surgery & related research2017

Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Sean Dangelmajer, Filippo Familiari, Roberto Simonetta, Mehmet Kaymakoglu, Gazi Huri

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Knee surgery & related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Similar clinical outcomes following collagen or polyurethane meniscal scaffold implantation: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Treatment, Return to Play, and Performance Following Meniscus Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Sean DangelmajerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Filippo FamiliariDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Magna Græcia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Roberto SimonettaDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, C.O.T. Cure Ortopediche Traumatologiche, Messina, Italy.
Mehmet KaymakogluDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Gazi HuriDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reported incidence of meniscal tears is approximately 61 per 100,000. In instances where preservation of the native meniscus is no longer a feasible option, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and implants or scaffolds may be considered. The goal of this review was to compare the success and failure rates of two techniques, MAT and meniscal scaffolds, and make an inference which treatment is more preferable at the present time and future. Studies that met inclusion criteria were assessed for technique used, type of transplant used, number of procedures included in the study, mean age of patients, mean follow-up time, number of failures, failure rate, and reported reoperation rate. Fifteen studies for the MAT group and 7 studies for the meniscal scaffold group were identified. In this selection of studies, the average failure rate in the MAT group was 18.7% and average reoperation rate was 31.3%. The average failure rate in the meniscal scaffold group was 5.6%, and average reoperation rate was 6.9%. It appears that although MAT is associated with high reoperation and failure rates, the limited number of studies on both MAT and scaffolds and mainly short-term results of scaffold studies make it difficult to make an objective comparison.

Indexed as

KneeMeniscusTissue scaffoldTransplant

Identifiers

PMID28231642
PMCPMC5336368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.