Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29909583›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2019

Clinical and radiographical ten years long-term outcome of microfracture vs. autologous chondrocyte implantation: a matched-pair analysis.

Robert Ossendorff, Kilian Franke, Benjamin Erdle, Markus Uhl, Norbert P Südkamp, Gian M Salzmann

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Robert OssendorffDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. robert.ossendorff@gmx.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6636-8065
Kilian FrankeDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Benjamin ErdleDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Markus UhlRKK Klinikum - St. Josefskrankenhaus, Freiburg, Germany.
Norbert P SüdkampDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Gian M SalzmannDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the clinical and radiographical long-term outcome of microfracture (MFX) and first-generation periosteum-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI-P).

methodsAll subjects (n = 86) who had been treated with knee joint ACI-P or microfracture (n = 76) with a post-operative follow-up of at least ten years were selected. Clinical pre- and post-operative outcomes were analyzed by numeric analog scale (NAS) for pain, Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC, and KOOS score. Radiographical evaluation was visualized by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Assessment of the regenerate quality was performed by the magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) and modified knee osteoarthritis scoring system (mKOSS). Relaxation time (RT) of T2 maps enabled a microstructural cartilage analysis.

resultsMFX and ACI of 44 patients (24 females, 20 males; mean age 38.9 ± 12.1 years) resulted in a good long-term outcome with low pain scores and significant improved clinical scores. The final Lysholm and functional NAS scores were significantly higher in the MFX group (Lysholm: MFX 82 ± 15 vs. ACI-P 71 ± 18 p = 0.027; NAS function: MFX 8.1 ± 3.5 vs. ACI-P 6.0 ± 2.5; p = 0.003). The MOCART score did not show any qualitative differences. KOSS analysis demonstrated that cartilage repair of small defects resulted in a significant better outcome. T2-relaxation times were without difference between groups at the region of the regenerate tissue.

conclusionThis study did not demonstrate coherent statistical differences between both cartilage repair procedures. MFX might be superior in the treatment of small cartilage defects.

Indexed as

AdultArthroplasty, SubchondralCartilage, ArticularChondrocytesFemaleHumansKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMatched-Pair AnalysisMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneePeriosteumTransplantation, AutologousTreatment OutcomeKnee osteoarthritis scoring systemMagnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissueMicrofracturePeriosteum-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation

Identifiers

PMID29909583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.