Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37892577›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023

Knee Cartilage Lesion Management-Current Trends in Clinical Practice.

Jaromir Jarecki, Marcin Krzysztof Waśko, Wojciech Widuchowski, Agnieszka Tomczyk-Warunek, Magdalena Wójciak, Ireneusz Sowa, Tomasz Blicharski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. COArthroscopy techniques · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. AMIC achieves sustained clinical improvement in isolated patellar cartilage defects over 5 years, correlating with MRI.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 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.

Jaromir JareckiDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Lublin, 20-059 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6866-3850
Marcin Krzysztof WaśkoDepartment of Radiology and Imaging, The Medical Centre of Postgraduate Education, 01-813 Warsaw, Poland.
Wojciech WiduchowskiDepartment of Physiotherapy, The College of Physiotherapy, 50-038 Wrocław, Poland.
Agnieszka Tomczyk-WarunekLaboratory of Locomotor Systems Research, Department of Rehabilitation and Physiotherapy, Medical University of Lublin, 20-059 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5007-7327
Magdalena WójciakDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, Medical University of Lublin, Chodzki 4a, 20-093 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0466-1343
Ireneusz SowaDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, Medical University of Lublin, Chodzki 4a, 20-093 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9346-6325
Tomasz BlicharskiDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Medical University of Lublin, 20-059 Lublin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9747-8817

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many patients, particularly those aged above 40, experience knee joint pain, which hampers both sports activities and daily living. Treating isolated chondral and osteochondral defects in the knee poses a significant clinical challenge, particularly in younger patients who are not typically recommended partial or total knee arthroplasty as alternatives. Several surgical approaches have been developed to address focal cartilage defects. The treatment strategies are characterized as palliation (e.g., chondroplasty and debridement), repair (e.g., drilling and microfracture), or restoration (e.g., autologous chondrocyte implantation, osteochondral autograft, and osteochondral allograft). This review offers an overview of the commonly employed clinical methods for treating articular cartilage defects, with a specific focus on the clinical trials conducted in the last decade. Our study reveals that, currently, no single technology fully meets the essential requirements for effective cartilage healing while remaining easily applicable during surgical procedures. Nevertheless, numerous methods are available, and the choice of treatment should consider factors such as the location and size of the cartilage lesion, patient preferences, and whether it is chondral or osteochondral in nature. Promising directions for the future include tissue engineering, stem cell therapies, and the development of pre-formed scaffolds from hyaline cartilage, offering hope for improved outcomes.

Indexed as

autologous chondrocyte implantationcartilageknee jointmesenchymal stem cellsmicrofracturemosaicplastyosteochondral autograft transferregenerative medicinerepair techniques

Identifiers

PMID37892577
PMCPMC10607427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.