ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Biomechanical Properties of Repair Cartilage Tissue Are Superior Following Microdrilling Compared to Microfracturing in Critical Size Cartilage Defects.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chondral regeneration in femoroacetabular lesions is favoured using peripheral blood stem cells with hyaluronan-based scaffold and micro-drilling: A prospective cohort study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Allogeneic umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cell implantation versus microdrilling combined with high tibial osteotomy for cartilage regeneration.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimCommon surgical treatment options for large focal chondral defects (FCDs) in the knee include microfracturing (MFX) and microdrilling (DRL). Despite numerous studies addressing MFX and DRL of FDCs, no in vivo study has focused on biomechanical analysis of repair cartilage tissue in critical size FCDs with different amounts of holes and penetration depths. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo round FCDs (d=6 mm) were created on the medial femoral condyle in 33 adult merino sheep. All 66 defects were randomly assigned to 1 control or 4 different study groups: 1) MFX1, 3 holes, 2 mm depth; 2) MFX2, 3 holes, 4 mm depth; 3) DRL1, 3 holes, 4 mm depth; and 4) DRL2, 6 holes, 4 mm depth. Animals were followed up for 1 year. Following euthanasia, quantitative optical analysis of defect filling was performed. Biomechanical properties were analysed with microindentation and calculation of the elastic modulus.
resultsQuantitative assessment of defect filling showed significantly better results in all treatment groups compared to untreated FCDs in the control group (p<0.001), with the best results for DRL2 (84.2% filling). The elastic modulus of repair cartilage tissue in the DRL1 and DRL2 groups was comparable to the adjacent native hyaline cartilage, while significantly inferior results were identified in both MFX groups (MFX1: p=0.002; MFX2: p<0.001).
conclusionMore defect filling and better biomechanical properties of the repair cartilage tissue were identified for DRL compared to MFX, with the best results for 6 holes and 4 mm of penetration depth. These findings are in contrast to the current clinical practice with MFX as the gold standard and suggest a clinical return to DRL.
Indexed as
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.