Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34008855›Full record

ArticleEuropean cells & materials2021

Marked differences in local bone remodelling in response to different marrow stimulation techniques in a large animal.

H M Zlotnick, R C Locke, B D Stoeckl, J M Patel, S Gupta, K D Browne, J Koh, J L Carey, R L Mauck

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European cells & materials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

H M Zlotnick
R C Locke
B D Stoeckl
J M Patel
S Gupta
K D Browne
J Koh
J L Carey
R L Mauck
Philadelphia VA Medical Center · USNorthShore University HealthSystem · USEmory University · US

Funding

Overall: Resource-based Center for Musculoskeletal Disorders Research (Overall Application)P30AR069619 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LOUIS J SOSLOWSKY · 2016 to 2026
$9.1M
Training Program in Musculoskeletal ResearchT32AR007132 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Robert L Mauck, LOUIS J SOSLOWSKY · 1986 to 2026
$4.9M
Engineered Developmental Microenvironments: Cartilage Formation and MaturationR01AR077362 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BURDICK, JASON A, MAUCK, ROBERT L · 2020 to 2024
$2.5M
Magneto-patterned cartilage constructs for improved osteochondral integrationF31AR077395 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ZLOTNICK, HANNAH MARIE · 2021 to 2022
$77k
NIAMS NIH HHS F31 AR077395NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR069619NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR077362NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR007132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marrow stimulation, including subchondral drilling and microfracture, is the most commonly performed cartilage repair strategy, whereby the subchondral bone plate is perforated to release marrow-derived cells into a cartilage defect to initiate repair. Novel scaffolds and therapeutics are being designed to enhance and extend the positive short-term outcomes of this marrow stimulation. However, the translation of these newer treatments is hindered by bony abnormalities, including bone resorption, intralesional osteophytes, and bone cysts, that can arise after marrow stimulation. In this study, three different marrow stimulation approaches - microfracture, subchondral drilling and needle-puncture - were evaluated in a translationally relevant large-animal model, the Yucatan minipig. The objective of the study was to determine which method of marrow access (malleted awl, drilled Kirschner wire or spring-loaded needle) best preserved the underlying subchondral bone. Fluorochrome labels were injected at the time of surgery and 2 weeks post-surgery to capture bone remodelling over the first 4 weeks. Comprehensive outcome measures included cartilage indentation testing, histological grading, microcomputed tomography and fluorochrome imaging. Findings indicated that needle-puncture devices best preserved the underlying subchondral bone relative to other marrow access approaches. This may relate to the degree of bony compaction occurring with marrow access, as the Kirschner wire approach, which consolidated bone the most, induced the most significant bone damage with marrow stimulation. This study provided basic scientific evidence in support of updated marrow stimulation techniques for preclinical and clinical practice.

Indexed as

AnimalsBone and BonesBone RemodelingCartilage, ArticularMaleModels, AnimalOsteophyteSwineSwine, Miniature

Identifiers

PMID34008855
PMCPMC8569589
OpenAlexW3133542186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-SA
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.