ArticleInternational orthopaedics2021
Osteochondral autograft transplantation versus autologous bone-cartilage paste grafting for the treatment of knee osteochondritis dissecans.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Bone Marrow Stimulation and Particulated Autologous Cartilage Transplantation for Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus With a 2-Year Follow-up.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Rehabilitation of Capitellar Osteochondritis Dissecans (OCD) Lesions in Gymnasts: A Review of Current Concepts and Treatment.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2026Article
- Cell-derived extracellular matrix scaffolds augmented with bone marrow aspirate concentrate promote cartilage regeneration.Materials today. Bio · 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
- Osteochondral solutions for cartilage lesions of the knee: a narrative review.Annals of joint · 2025Review
- Single-plug osteochondral autograft transplantation for knee osteochondritis dissecans: Clinical improvement and long-term survivorship at a minimum ten year follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Osteochondral autograft transplantation (mosaicplasty): What is the impact of plug diameter in cartilage repair?International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Nanofiber scaffolds based on extracellular matrix for articular cartilage engineering: A perspective.Nanotheranostics · 2023Review
- [Surgical treatment of focal cartilage defects in the knee : Indications, techniques, modifications and results].Der Orthopade · 2022Article
- Fresh Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in Osteochondritis Dissecans in the Knee Joint.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- [Surgical treatment of focal cartilage defects in the knee : Indications, techniques, modifications and results].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2021Article
- Osteoarthritis: an ancient disease, an unsolved conundrum.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Botanical Drug Extracts Combined With Biomaterial Carriers for Osteoarthritis Cartilage Degeneration Treatment: A Review of 10 Years of Research.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the results of two groups of patients affected by osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee and treated with either osteochondral autologous transplantation (OAT) or bone-cartilage paste grafting (PG).
methodsA total of 27 patients affected by OCD lesions of the femoral condyles were included: 15 treated with OAT, 12 with PG, with comparable baseline characteristics (mean age 22.4 ± 7.2 vs. 24.2 ± 8.5 p = n.s., mean defect size 2.2 ± 1 cm
resultsThe IKDC subjective score improved significantly in both groups. At 24 months, a significant improvement from 53.4 ± 9.1 to 80.8 ± 12.9 (p = 0.005) was obtained in the OAT group and from 44.6 ± 11.0 to 71.4 ± 25.3 in the PG group (p = 0.008). A further statistically significant increase was observed at 84 months in both groups. No significant differences were found between OAT and PG at both follow-ups. One OAT patient required post-operative knee mobilization under narcosis and two complained of donor site symptoms. More failures were documented in the PG vs OAT group (25% vs 0%; p = 0.043).
conclusionBoth PG and OAT provided overall satisfactory results up to 84 months follow-up. However, while PG presents the advantages of a less invasive approach with lower adverse events, the higher failure rate of PG should be considered when choosing between these two surgical treatment options for restoration of the articular surface in patients affected by knee OCD.
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.