SynthesisMusculoskeletal surgery2023
Time to reconsider post arthroscopic osteonecrosis of the knee: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subchondral Insufficiency Fracture of the Knee Previously Diagnosed as Spontaneous Osteonecrosis: A Case Report With Histological Analysis.Case reports in orthopedics · 2026Article
- Histopathological evaluation of spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee: time to reconsider history and nomenclature-a scoping review.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2025Article
- Subchondral insufficiency fracture of the knee: progress in the pathogenesis and treatment.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The etiology of post-arthroscopic osteonecrosis of the knee (PAONK) is still unknown. The aims of this systematic review were to analyze the main characteristics of patients who developed osteonecrosis after arthroscopy. We considered for inclusion in the review case reports, case series, retrospective and prospective clinical trial, that involved patients who developed osteonecrosis of the knee within 1 year of arthroscopy for meniscal lesion or anterior cruciate ligament rupture with or without chondropathy. In all cases, there was a pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging that excluded the presence of osteonecrosis. We used the MINORS criteria to estimate the risk of bias. A total of 13 studies that involved 125 patients were included in the review. Only 14 out of 55 patients performed the pre-operative MRI after the "window period", which we considered 6 weeks between the onset of symptoms and positive MRI findings. A diagnosis of PAONK was made for 55 patients within 1 year of surgery. Of these, 29% was treated conservatively, while 71% repeated surgery. Osteonecrosis after knee arthroscopy is a reality and surgeon shouldn't underestimate the persistence or re-emergence of symptoms after arthroscopy. It may be due to subchondral insufficiency fractures in osteopenic bone, without evidence of necrosis. However, there are not elements enough to differentiate clinical and radiological characteristics of PAONK from SPONK. Terminology should be simplified, distinguishing subchondral insufficiency fractures of the knee as a precursor of primary osteonecrosis of the knee.
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.