Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32913875›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2020

Microfracture Versus Drilling of Articular Cartilage Defects: A Systematic Review of the Basic Science Evidence.

Matthew J Kraeutler, Gianna M Aliberti, Anthony J Scillia, Eric C McCarty, Mary K Mulcahey

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Additional cartilage treatment for small defects in chronic ankle instability shows no mid-term benefit and delays recovery: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Treatment Options for Focal Cartilage Lesions of the Knee.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew J KraeutlerSt. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, USA.
Gianna M AlibertiTulane University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Anthony J ScilliaSt. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, USA.
Eric C McCartyUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Mary K MulcaheyTulane University School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Tulane University · USOrthopaedic Center of New Jersey · USSt. Joseph’s University Medical Center · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicrofracture (MFx) is one of the most common techniques used for the treatment of articular cartilage defects, although recently there has been a trend toward the use of drilling rather than MFx for the treatment of these defects. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of basic science studies to determine the effect of microfracture versus drilling for articular cartilage repair. STUDY

designSystematic review.

methodsA systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to identify basic science studies comparing outcomes of MFx versus drilling. The search phrase used was

resultsA total of 7 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Of these, 4 studies were performed in rabbits, 1 study in sheep, and 2 studies in humans. All of the included studies investigated cartilage repair in the knee. In the animal studies, microfracture produced fractured and compacted bone and led to increased osteocyte necrosis compared with drilling. Deep drilling (6 mm) was superior to both shallow drilling (2 mm) and MFx in terms of increased subchondral hematoma with greater access to marrow stroma, improved cartilage repair, and increased mineralized bone. However, the overall quality of cartilage repair tissue was poor regardless of marrow stimulation technique. In 2 studies that investigated repair tissue after MFx and/or drilling in human patients with osteoarthritis and cartilage defects, the investigators found that cartilage repair tissue did not achieve the quality of normal hyaline articular cartilage.

conclusionIn the limited basic science studies that are available, deep drilling of cartilage defects in the knee resulted in improved biological features compared with MFx, including less damage to the subchondral bone and greater access to marrow stroma. Regardless of marrow stimulation technique, the overall quality of cartilage regeneration was poor and did not achieve the characteristics of native hyaline cartilage. Overall, there is a general lack of basic science literature comparing microfracture versus drilling for focal chondral defects.

Indexed as

articular cartilagebone marrow stimulationdrillingfocal chondral defectsmicrofracture

Identifiers

PMID32913875
PMCPMC7443991
OpenAlexW3080075427

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.