Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29796401›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2018

Learning From Failure in Cartilage Repair Surgery: An Analysis of the Mode of Failure of Primary Procedures in Consecutive Cases at a Tertiary Referral Center.

Aaron J Krych, Mario Hevesi, Vishal S Desai, Christopher L Camp, Michael J Stuart, Daniel B F Saris

Abstract 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 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cell-based regenerative joint therapy: a hot topic.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

6 authors.

Aaron J KrychDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Mario HevesiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Vishal S DesaiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Christopher L CampDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Michael J StuartDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Daniel B F SarisDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the number of cartilage restoration procedures is increasing, so is the number of revision procedures. However, there remains limited information on the reasons for failure of primary cartilage restoration procedures. PURPOSE: To determine the common modes of failure in primary cartilage restoration procedures to improve surgical decision making and patient outcomes. STUDY

designCase series; Level of evidence, 4.

methodsPatients who presented for revision after failed cartilage repair surgery were evaluated for factors contributing to failure of the primary procedure. All revision cases performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary center for failed cartilage restoration over a 6-year time frame were identified. In all cases, the medical records, preoperative radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging scans were reviewed by 2 experienced cartilage surgeons. The cause for failure was categorized as malalignment, meniscal deficiency, graft or biologic failure, or instability. Univariate and descriptive statistics regarding patient demographics, index procedure, lesion location and size, and mechanism of failure were analyzed.

resultsA total of 59 cases in 53 patients (32 male, 21 female) met the inclusion criteria. The mean patient age at the time of revision was 27.6 years, and the mean body mass index was 28.4 kg/m

conclusionThe most commonly recognized reason for failure was untreated malalignment. While biologic and graft failures will occur, the majority of failures were attributed to untreated background factors such as malalignment, meniscal deficiency, and instability. The stepwise approach of considering and addressing alignment, meniscal volume, and stability remains essential in cartilage restoration surgery.

Indexed as

failed cartilagemalalignmentmeniscal deficiencyrevision cartilage restoration

Identifiers

PMID29796401
PMCPMC5960861

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.