Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33409291›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2020

Bone and Cartilage Interfaces With Orthopedic Implants: A Literature Review.

Remigiusz M Grzeskowiak, Jim Schumacher, Madhu S Dhar, David P Harper, Pierre-Yves Mulon, David E Anderson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Bioactive materials · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  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.

Remigiusz M GrzeskowiakLarge Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine, Knoxville, TN, United States.
Jim SchumacherLarge Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine, Knoxville, TN, United States.
Madhu S DharLarge Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine, Knoxville, TN, United States.
David P HarperThe Center for Renewable Carbon, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States.
Pierre-Yves MulonLarge Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine, Knoxville, TN, United States.
David E AndersonLarge Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine, Knoxville, TN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The interface between a surgical implant and tissue consists of a complex and dynamic environment characterized by mechanical and biological interactions between the implant and surrounding tissue. The implantation process leads to injury which needs to heal over time and the rapidity of this process as well as the property of restored tissue impact directly the strength of the interface. Bleeding is the first and most relevant step of the healing process because blood provides growth factors and cellular material necessary for tissue repair. Integration of the implants placed in poorly vascularized tissue such as articular cartilage is, therefore, more challenging than compared with the implants placed in well-vascularized tissues such as bone. Bleeding is followed by the establishment of a provisional matrix that is gradually transformed into the native tissue. The ultimate goal of implantation is to obtain a complete integration between the implant and tissue resulting in long-term stability. The stability of the implant has been defined as primary (mechanical) and secondary (biological integration) stability. Successful integration of an implant within the tissue depends on both stabilities and is vital for short- and long-term surgical outcomes. Advances in research aim to improve implant integration resulting in enhanced implant and tissue interface. Numerous methods have been employed to improve the process of modifying both stability types. This review provides a comprehensive discussion of current knowledge regarding implant-tissue interfaces within bone and cartilage as well as novel approaches to strengthen the implant-tissue interface. Furthermore, it gives an insight into the current state-of-art biomechanical testing of the stability of the implants. Current knowledge reveals that the design of the implants closely mimicking the native structure is more likely to become well integrated. The literature provides however several other techniques such as coating with a bioactive compound that will stimulate the integration and successful outcome for the patient.

Indexed as

biomechanicsbonecartilagecartilage scaffoldimplantimplant and tissue interfaceorthopedic implantosseointegration

Identifiers

PMID33409291
PMCPMC7779634

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.