Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34554880›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of sports medicine2022

Allograft Versus Autograft Osteochondral Transplant for Chondral Defects of the Talus: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Filippo Migliorini, Nicola Maffulli, Alice Baroncini, Jörg Eschweiler, Matthias Knobe, Markus Tingart, Hanno Schenker

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of sports medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Cell therapies for chondral defects of the talus: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. YouTube Videos on Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation Lack Accuracy and Quality.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7220-1221
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5327-3702
Alice BaronciniDepartment of Orthopedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Jörg EschweilerDepartment of Orthopedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Matthias KnobeDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Markus TingartDepartment of Orthopedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Hanno SchenkerDepartment of Orthopedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Aachen · DEUniversity of Lucerne · CHUniversity of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is unclear whether the results of osteochondral transplant using autografts or allografts for talar osteochondral defect are equivalent. PURPOSE: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to compare allografts and autografts in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), MRI findings, and complications. STUDY

designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

methodsThis study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The literature search was conducted in February 2021. All studies investigating the outcomes of allograft and/or autograft osteochondral transplant as management for osteochondral defects of the talus were accessed. The outcomes of interest were visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score. Data concerning the rates of failure and revision surgery were also collected. Continuous data were analyzed using the mean difference (MD), whereas binary data were evaluated with the odds ratio (OR) effect measure.

resultsData from 40 studies (1174 procedures) with a mean follow-up of 46.5 ± 25 months were retrieved. There was comparability concerning the length of follow-up, male to female ratio, mean age, body mass index, defect size, VAS score, and AOFAS score (

conclusionBased on the main findings of the present systematic review, talar osteochondral transplant using allografts was associated with higher rates of failure and revision compared with autografts at midterm follow-up.

Indexed as

Cartilage, ArticularCartilage DiseasesIntra-Articular FracturesTalusAllograftsAutograftsCartilageFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleRetrospective StudiesTransplantation, AutologousTreatment OutcomeallograftautograftOATosteochondral defectosteochondral transplanttalus

Identifiers

PMID34554880
PMCPMC9527449
OpenAlexW3200305940

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.