ArticleCartilage2024
Subchondral Bone Alignment in Osteochondral Allograft Transplants for Large Oval Defects of the Medial Femoral Condyle: Comparison of Lateral versus Medial Femoral Condyle Donors.
Article in Cartilage, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Is There a Difference Between Medial and Lateral Femoral Condyle Allografts? An Outcome and Survivorship Analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSupply-demand mismatch of medial femoral condyle (MFC) osteochondral allografts (OCAs) remains a rate-limiting factor in the treatment of osteochondral defects of the femoral condyle. Surface contour mapping was used to determine whether a contralateral lateral femoral condyle (LFC) versus ipsilateral MFC OCA differs in the alignment of donor:native subchondral bone for large osteochondral defects of the MFC.
designThirty fresh-frozen human femoral condyles were matched by tibial width into 10 groups of 3 condyles (MFC recipient, MFC donor, and LFC donor) each for 3 cartilage surgeons (90 condyles). The recipient MFC was imaged using nano-computed tomography scan. Donor oval grafts were harvested from each matched condyle and transplanted into a 17 mm × 36 mm defect created in the recipient condyle. Following the first transplant, the recipient condyle was imaged and superimposed on the native condyle nano-CT scan. The donor plug was removed and the process repeated for the other donor. Surface height deviation and circumferential step-off height deviation were compared between native and donor subchondral bone surfaces for each transplant.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in mean subchondral bone surface deviation (LFC = 0.87 mm, MFC = 0.76 mm,
conclusionsThere were no significant differences in subchondral bone circumferential step-off or surface deviation between ipsilateral MFC and contralateral LFC oval-shaped OCAs for 17 mm × 36 mm defects of the MFC.
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.