Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31877143›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Report on a large animal study with Göttingen Minipigs where regenerates and controls for articular cartilage were created in a large number. Focus on the conditions of the operated stifle joints and suggestions for standardized procedures.

Markus L Schwarz, Gregor Reisig, Andy Schütte, Kristianna Becker, Susanne Serba, Elmar Forsch, Steffen Thier, Stefan Fickert, Tamara Lenz, Christel Weiß and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Markus L SchwarzSection for experimental Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Centre (OUZ), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0209-922X
Gregor ReisigSection for experimental Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Centre (OUZ), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Andy SchütteSection for experimental Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Centre (OUZ), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Kristianna BeckerInterfaculty Biomedical Facility, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Susanne SerbaInterfaculty Biomedical Facility, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Elmar ForschDepartment of Experimental Pain Research, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Steffen ThierSection for experimental Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Centre (OUZ), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Stefan FickertSection for experimental Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Centre (OUZ), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Tamara LenzStatistical Consulting, Mannheim, Germany.
Christel WeißDepartment of Medical Statistics, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Svetlana HetjensDepartment of Medical Statistics, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Frederic BludauSection for experimental Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Centre (OUZ), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Friederike BotheResearch Centre for Experimental Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Wiltrud RichterResearch Centre for Experimental Orthopaedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Barbara Schneider-WaldSection for experimental Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Centre (OUZ), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEAtos (France) · FRStatistisches Bundesamt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The characterization of regenerated articular cartilage (AC) can be based on various methods, as there is an unambiguous accepted criterion neither for the natural cartilage tissue nor for regenerates. Biomechanical aspects should be considered as well, leading to the need for more equivalent samples. The aim of the study was to describe a large animal model where 8 specimens of regenerated AC can be created in one animal plus the impact of two surgeries on the welfare of the animals. The usefulness of the inclusion of a group of untreated animals (NAT) was to analyzed. Based on the histological results the conditions of the regenerates were to be described and the impact on knee joints were to be explored in terms of degenerative changes of the cartilage. The usefulness of the statistical term "effect size" (ES) will be explained with histological results. We analyzed an animal model where 8 AC regenerates were obtained from one Göttingen Minipig, on both sides of the trochleae. 60 animals were divided into 6 groups of 10 each, where the partial thickness defects in the trochlea were filled with matrices made of Collagen I with or without autologous chondrocytes or left empty over the healing periods of 24 and 48 weeks. One additional control group consisting of 10 untreated animals was used to provide untouched "external" cartilage. We harvested 560 samples of regenerated tissue and "external" controls, besides that, twice the number of further samples from other parts of the joints referred to as "internal" controls were also harvested. The animals recovered faster after the 1st operation when the defects were set compared to the 2nd operation when the defects were treated. 9% of all animals were lost. Other complications were for example superficial infections, seroma, diarrhea, febrile state and an injury of a claw. The histological results of the treatments proved the robustness of the study design where we included an "external" control group (NAT) in which the animals were not operated. Comparable significant differences between treated groups and the NAT group were detected both after ½ year and after 1 year. Spontaneous regenerated AC as control revealed differences after an observation time of nearly 1 year. The impact of the treatment on cartilage adjacent to the defect as well as the remaining knee joint was low. The ES was helpful for planning the study as it is shown that the power of a statistical comparison seems to be more influenced by the ES than by the sample size. The ranking of the ES was done exemplarily, listing the results according to their magnitude, thus making the results comparable. We were able to follow the 3 R requirements also in terms of a numerical reduction of animals due to the introduction of a group of untreated animals. This makes the model cost effective. The presented study may contribute as an improvement of the standardization of large animal models for research and regulatory requirements for regenerative therapies of AC.

Indexed as

RegenerationAnimalsCartilage, ArticularChondrocytesFemaleKnee JointModels, AnimalSwineSwine, MiniatureWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID31877143
PMCPMC6932782
OpenAlexW2998219381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.