ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
Microdrilling Demonstrates Superior Patient-Reported Outcomes and Lower Revision Rates Than Traditional Microfracture: A Matched Cohort Analysis.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for Isolated Microfracture of the Knee at 5-Year Follow-up.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of Clinical, Radiologic, and Arthroscopic Outcomes Between the Microfracture and Microdrilling Techniques for Articular Cartilage Defects in Medial Opening-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Intervention for impending pathological fractures at proximal femur is associated with lower mortality rates in patients with intermediate-to-high risk according to the Katagiri-New score.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Rehabilitation, Restrictions, and Return to Sport After Cartilage Procedures.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes and revision rates between the standard microfracture awl versus the microdrilling technique.
methodsMicrofracture patients were queried from a single-institution database between 2001 and 2016. Patient-reported outcome measure data were collected at preoperative and 6- and 12-month time points, inclusive of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Short Form 12 (SF12) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score, and all Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales. A matching algorithm based on previous procedures, lesion size, and demographic factors created 2 technique-based cohorts. Outcomes including revision rates and both statistically and clinically significant differences (i.e., the minimally clinically important difference [MCID]) between awl and microdrill cohorts were compared using univariate statistics.
resultsA total of 68 patients (aged 32.0 ± 13.1 years, 48.5% female, body mass index 26.7 ± 5.3 kg/m
conclusionsMicrodrilling demonstrated superior outcomes relative to traditional microfracture awl techniques with respect to patient-reported outcomes at 6 months and revision rates within 3 years of follow-up. In addition, clinically meaningful differences were evident at 6 months in the microdrilling group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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.