Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34676269›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021

A Systematic Review of Focal Cartilage Defect Treatments in Middle-Aged Versus Younger Patients.

Ralph M Jeuken, Pieter P W van Hugten, Alex K Roth, Ufuk Tan Timur, Tim A E J Boymans, Lodewijk W van Rhijn, William D Bugbee, Pieter J Emans

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Patellar cartilage repair-current concepts and evidence].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Tribomechanical Properties of PVA/NomexGels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ralph M JeukenMaastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Pieter P W van HugtenMaastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Alex K RothMaastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Ufuk Tan TimurMaastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Tim A E J BoymansMaastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Lodewijk W van RhijnMaastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
William D BugbeeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California, USA.
Pieter J EmansMaastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLScripps Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFocal cartilage defects are often debilitating, possess limited potential for regeneration, are associated with increased risk of osteoarthritis, and are predictive for total knee arthroplasty. Cartilage repair studies typically focus on the outcome in younger patients, but a high proportion of treated patients are 40 to 60 years of age (ie, middle-aged). The reality of current clinical practice is that the ideal patient for cartilage repair is not the typical patient. Specific attention to cartilage repair outcomes in middle-aged patients is warranted. PURPOSE: To systematically review available literature on knee cartilage repair in middle-aged patients and include studies comparing results across different age groups. STUDY

designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

methodsA systematic search was performed in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library database. Articles were screened for relevance and appraised for quality.

resultsA total of 21 articles (mean Coleman Methodology Score, 64 points) were included. Two out of 3 bone marrow stimulation (BMS) studies, including 1 using the microfracture technique, revealed inferior clinical outcomes in middle-aged patients in comparison with younger patients. Nine cell-based studies were included showing inconsistent comparisons of results across age groups for autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). Bone marrow aspirate concentrate showed age-independent results at up to 8 years of follow-up. A negative effect of middle age was reported in 1 study for both ACI and BMS. Four out of 5 studies on bone-based resurfacing therapies (allografting and focal knee resurfacing implants [FKRIs]) showed age-independent results up to 5 years. One study in only middle-aged patients reported better clinical outcomes for FKRIs when compared with biological repairs.

conclusionIncluded studies were heterogeneous and had low methodological quality. BMS in middle-aged patients seems to only result in short-term improvements. More research is warranted to elucidate the ameliorating effects of cell-based therapies on the aging joint homeostasis. Bone-based therapies seem to be relatively insensitive to aging and may potentially result in effective joint preservation. Age subanalyses in cohort studies, randomized clinical trials, and international registries should generate more evidence for the large but underrepresented (in terms of cartilage repair) middle-aged population in the literature.

Indexed as

bone-basedbone marrow stimulationcartilagecell-basedmiddle-agedrepair

Identifiers

PMID34676269
PMCPMC8524698
OpenAlexW3205403503

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.