Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38652368›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2024

Biologic Augmentation of Isolated Meniscal Repair.

Kevin Chen, Sarthak Aggarwal, Hayden Baker, Aravind Athiviraham

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.3field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in meniscal repair surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Long-Term Results for Meniscus Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kevin ChenPritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Sarthak AggarwalPritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Hayden BakerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Ave MC 3079, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.
Aravind AthivirahamDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Ave MC 3079, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. Aravind.Athiviraham@uchicagomedicine.org.
University of Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe limited blood supply and intrinsic healing capacity of the meniscus contributes to suboptimal tissue regeneration following injury and surgical repair. Biologic augmentation techniques have been utilized in combination with isolated meniscal repair to improve tissue regeneration. Several innovative strategies such as Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), fibrin clots, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), bone marrow stimulation, meniscal scaffolds, and meniscal wrapping, are being explored to enhance repair outcomes. This article provides a comprehensive review of recent findings and conclusions regarding biologic augmentation techniques. RECENT

findingsStudies on PRP reveal mixed outcomes, with some suggesting benefits in reducing failure rates of isolated meniscal repair, while others question its efficacy. Fibrin clots and PRF (Platelet-rich fibrin), although promising, show inconsistent results and lack sufficient evidence for definitive conclusions. MSCs demonstrate potential in preclinical studies, but clinical trials have been limited and inconclusive. Bone marrow stimulation appears effective in certain contexts, but its broader applicability remains uncertain. Meniscal scaffolds, including CMI (Collagen Meniscal Implants) and Actifit (polyurethane scaffolds), show encouraging short- and mid-term outcomes but have not consistently surpassed traditional methods in the long term. Meniscal wrapping is infrequently studied but demonstrates positive short-term results with certain applications. The review reveals a diverse range of outcomes for biologic augmentation in meniscal repair. While certain techniques show promise, particularly in specific scenarios, the overall efficacy of these methods has yet to reach a consensus. The review underscores the necessity for standardized, high-quality research to establish the definitive effectiveness of these biologic augmentation methods.

Indexed as

Biologic augmentationBone marrow stimulationClinical outcomesFibrin clotsMeniscal repairMeniscal scaffoldsMeniscal wrappingMesenchymal stem cells (MSCs)Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP)

Identifiers

PMID38652368
PMCPMC11156815
OpenAlexW4395038104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.