Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29450205›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2018

Revision Surgery After Cartilage Repair: Data From the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU).

Jan M Pestka, Nam H Luu, Norbert P Südkamp, Peter Angele, Gunther Spahn, Wolfgang Zinser, Philipp Niemeyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prognostic factors for the management of chondral defects of the knee and ankle joint: a systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jan M PestkaDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Nam H LuuDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Norbert P SüdkampDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Peter AngeleDepartment of Traumatology, Regensburg University Hospital, Regensburg, Germany.
Gunther SpahnCenter of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Jena University Hospital, Eisenach, Germany.
Wolfgang ZinserDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, St Vinzenz Hospital, Dinslaken, Germany.
Philipp NiemeyerDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DEJena University Hospital · DEStadtwerke Dinslaken (Germany) · DEUniversity Hospital Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious operative strategies have been introduced to restore the integrity of articular cartilage when injured. The frequency of revision surgery after cartilage regenerative surgery remains incompletely understood. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to identify the reasons for revision surgery after cartilage regenerative surgery of the knee. We hypothesized that in a large patient cohort, revision rates would differ from those in the current literature. STUDY

designCase-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

methodsA total of 2659 complete data sets from the German Cartilage Registry were available for analyses. In brief, baseline data were provided by the attending physician at the time of index surgery. Follow-up data were collected using a web-based questionnaire inquiring whether patients had needed revision surgery during follow-up, which was defined as the endpoint of the present analysis.

resultsA total of 88 patients (3.3%) reported the need for revision surgery as early as 12 months postoperatively. Among the most common causes were arthrofibrosis (n = 27) and infection (n = 10). Female patients showed a significantly greater complication rate (4.5%) when compared with male patients (2.6%;

conclusionThe low early revision rates found in this study underline that today's cartilage repair surgeries are mostly safe. Although invasiveness and techniques differ greatly among the procedures, no differences in revision rates were observed. Specific factors such as sex and the number of previous surgeries seem to influence overall revision rates and were identified as relevant risk factors with regard to patient safety.

Indexed as

cartilageGerman Cartilage Registrykneerevision surgery

Identifiers

PMID29450205
PMCPMC5808974
OpenAlexW2792341800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.