ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2024
A comparative analysis of 3D bioprinted gelatin-hyaluronic acid-alginate scaffold and microfracture for the management of osteochondral defects in the rabbit knee joint.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 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.
- Histological Processing of Scaffolds: Challenges and Solutions.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to compare the radiological, biomechanical, and histopathological results of microfracture treatment and osteochondral damage repair treatment with a new scaffold product produced by the three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting method containing gelatin-hyaluronic acid-alginate in rabbits with osteochondral damage. MATERIALS AND
methodsA new 3D bioprinted scaffold consisting of gelatin, hyaluronic acid, and alginate designed by us was implanted into the osteochondral defect created in the femoral trochlea of 10 rabbits. By randomization, it was determined which side of 10 rabbits would be repaired with a 3D bioprinted scaffold, and microfracture treatment was applied to the other knees of the rabbits. After six months of follow-up, the rabbits were sacrificed. The results of both treatment groups were compared radiologically, biomechanically, and histopathologically.
resultsNone of the rabbits experienced any complications. The magnetic resonance imaging evaluation showed that all osteochondral defect areas were integrated with healthy cartilage in both groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in the biomechanical load test (p=0.579). No statistically significant difference was detected in the histological examination using the modified Wakitani scores (p=0.731).
conclusionOur study results showed that 3D bioprinted scaffolds exhibited comparable radiological, biomechanical, and histological properties to the conventional microfracture technique for osteochondral defect treatment.
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.