Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29149506›Full record

ReviewJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2018

Integrating soft and hard tissues via interface tissue engineering.

Sahishnu Patel, Jon-Michael Caldwell, Stephen B Doty, William N Levine, Scott Rodeo, Louis J Soslowsky, Stavros Thomopoulos, Helen H Lu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Sahishnu PatelBiomaterials and Interface Tissue Engineering Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York, 10027.
Jon-Michael CaldwellDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, 10032.
Stephen B DotyAnalytical Microscopy Core Laboratory, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, 10021.
William N LevineDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, 10032.
Scott RodeoSoft Tissue Research Laboratory, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, 10021.
Louis J SoslowskyMcKay Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104.
Stavros ThomopoulosCarroll Laboratories of Orthopedic Research, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University, New York, New York, 10032.
Helen H LuBiomaterials and Interface Tissue Engineering Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York, 10027.

Funding

Nanofiber Scaffolds with Gradations in Mineral Content for Rotator Cuff RepairR01AR060820 · NIAMS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI GALATZ, LEESA M, THOMOPOULOS, STAVROS · 2011 to 2015
$2.2M
Interface Tissue Engineering for Soft Tissue-to-Bone IntegrationR01AR055280 · NIAMS · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI LU, HELEN H · 2008 to 2014
$1.9M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR055280NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR060820
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The enthesis, or interface between bone and soft tissues such as ligament and tendon, is prone to injury and often does not heal, even post surgical intervention. Interface tissue engineering represents an integrative strategy for regenerating the native enthesis by functionally connecting soft and hard tissues and thereby improving clinical outcome. This review focuses on integrative and cell-instructive scaffold designs that target the healing of the two most commonly injured soft tissue-bone junctions: tendon-bone interface (e.g., rotator cuff) and ligament-bone interface (e.g., anterior cruciate ligament). The inherent connectivity between soft and hard tissues is instrumental for musculoskeletal motion and is therefore a key design criterion for soft tissue regeneration. To this end, scaffold design for soft tissue regeneration have progressed from single tissue systems to the emerging focus on pre-integrated and functional composite tissue units. Specifically, a multifaceted, bioinspired approach has been pursued wherein scaffolds are tailored to stimulate relevant cell responses using spatially patterned structural and chemical cues, growth factors, and/or mechanical stimulation. Moreover, current efforts to elucidate the essential scaffold design criteria via strategic biomimicry are emphasized as these will reduce complexity in composite tissue regeneration and ease the related burden for clinical translation. These innovative studies underscore the clinical relevance of engineering connective tissue integration and have broader impact in the formation of complex tissues and total joint regeneration. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1069-1077, 2018.

Indexed as

Composite Tissue AllograftsTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsWound HealingAnimalsEnthesopathyHumansLigamentsTendonsbiomaterialshard-to-soft-tissue repairigamenttendontissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID29149506
PMCPMC6467291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.