ArticleCartilage2021
Clinical Outcomes after Revision of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation to Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation for Large Chondral Defects: A Comparative Matched-Group Analysis.
Article in Cartilage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spheroid-based matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation combined with autologous bone grafting restores physiological cartilage and subchondral bone properties in osteochondral knee defects-An MRI-based analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- YouTube Videos on Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation Lack Accuracy and Quality.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Revision Surgery Is the Most Common Definition of Failure in Studies Evaluating Knee Cartilage Restoration Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Advances in Bioresorbable Triboelectric Nanogenerators.Chemical reviews · 2023Review
- Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes After Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation for Treating Articular Cartilage Defects: Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis of Studies From 2001 to 2020.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Rehabilitation and Return-to-Play Criteria After Fresh Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Review
- Article
- Metrics of OsteoChondral Allografts (MOCA) Group Consensus Statements on the Use of Viable Osteochondral Allograft.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOsteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) is a well-established procedure for patients with symptomatic cartilage defects in the knee. Revision to OCA after prior failed cartilage repair has shown similar clinical outcomes as primary OCA; however, most of the failed procedures were arthroscopic procedures for smaller defects. There is no literature investigating the clinical outcomes after OCA for prior failed autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) for the treatment of large chondral defects of the knee. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision to OCA after prior failed ACI as compared with a matched cohort of patients undergoing OCA as a primary cartilage repair procedure (primary OCA).
designIn this review of prospectively collected data, we analyzed data from 26 patients with at least 2 years follow-up. Thirteen patients who underwent revision to OCA after prior failed ACI by a single surgeon were compared with a matched group of patients who underwent primary OCA. The patients were matched per age, gender, body mass index, and defect size. Patient-reported outcomes, reoperations, and survival rates were compared between groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences in patient-reported clinical outcome scores between the groups at final follow-up. Moreover, there was no significant difference in reoperation rates and survival rates between the groups.
conclusionThe present study demonstrates that revision to OCA is a viable treatment option with favorable functional outcomes and similar reoperation and survival rate as primary OCA even for revision of large chondral defects previously treated with ACI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.