Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39087507›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2024

Microfractures, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, osteochondral autograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation for knee chondral defects: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Silvia Valisena, Benjamin Azogui, Rémy S Nizard, Philippe M Tscholl, Etienne Cavaignac, Pierre-Alban Bouché, Didier Hannouche

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Silvia ValisenaDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1746-2901
Benjamin AzoguiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.
Rémy S NizardDepartment of Orthopaedics, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.
Philippe M TschollDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève, Switzerland.
Etienne CavaignacDepartment of Orthopaedics, Hôpital Pierre Paul Riquet, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Pierre-Alban BouchéDepartment of Orthopaedics, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.
Didier HannoucheDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Despite the publication of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is not clear which technique for the treatment of focal chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee grants the best clinical outcome. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of microfractures (MF), autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC), osteochondral autograft transplantation (OCT) at short (< 1 year), intermediate (1-5 years) and long-term (> 5 years). Methods: We carried out an NMA with Bayesian random-effect model, according to PRISMA guidelines. The search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, from inception to November 2022. The eligibilities were randomized controlled trials on patients with knee chondral and osteochondral defects, undergoing microfractures, OCT, AMIC, ACI, without restrictions for prior or concomitant surgery on ligaments, menisci or limb alignment, prior surgery for fixation or ablation of osteochondritis dissecans fragments, and prior cartilage procedures as microfractures, drilling, abrasion, or debridement. Results: Nineteen RCTs were included. No difference among treatments was shown in the pooled comparison of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at any timepoint. Safety data were not available for all trials due to the heterogeneity of reporting, but chondrospheres seemed to have lower failure and reoperation rates. Conclusion: This NMA showed no difference for PROMs with any technique. The lower failure and reoperation rates with chondrospheres must be interpreted with caution since adverse event data was heterogenous among trials. The standardization of the efficacy and safety outcome measures for future trials on knee cartilage repair and regeneration is necessary.

Indexed as

arthroscopycartilagekneeknee injuriessporting injuries

Identifiers

PMID39087507
PMCPMC11370723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.