ReviewDer Orthopade2017
[Indication and limitations of meniscus replacement].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Meniscal substitution, a developing and long-awaited demand.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeniscal lesions are among the most important musculoskeletal disorders and are the most common indication for knee joint arthroplasty. However, the structural integrity and function is rarely retained, and a loss of tissue results. Thus, there is a huge demand for meniscal replacement options. CURRENT PROCEDURES: Autografts were used in the past but did not fulfill expectations. Meniscus allografts have been developed to be a viable treatment option. However, availability is limited and evidence of a long-term chondroprotective effect scarce. Artificial scaffolds made from either collagen or PCU foam are available, which aid the regeneration of meniscal tissue and are rather intended as a partial replacement with an intact peripheral rim. Those implants thus have a limited spectrum of indication. While they seem to be symptomatically effective, it remains unclear whether they can reduce secondary cartilage damage. Newer developments aim at a permanent replacement of lost meniscal tissue. LIMITATIONS: In summary, there is currently no meniscal replacement available for a broad range of indications and with a solid scientific foundation. Prophylactic use should be limited to cases with a high chance of progression to osteoarthritis, like a lateral total meniscectomy. Otherwise meniscal replacement should be considered in younger, symptomatic patients with mild to moderate secondary changes. Potential causes of the initial meniscal injury like instability or deformities should be carefully assessed and addressed. In many cases, osteotomy might be a viable alternative to meniscus replacement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28887704What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.