ReviewJournal of orthopaedic translation2025
Charting a quarter-century of commercial cartilage regeneration products.
Review in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural Biomaterials for Osteochondral Repair: From Source to Strategy.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Corrigendum to "Strong living scaffolds for load-bearing musculoskeletal tissue regeneration" [Mater. Today Bio 35 (2025) 102571].Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Collagen II and decellularized hyaline cartilage scaffolds derived from bovine trachea differentially promote chondrogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells and decrease secretion of angiogenic factors.Cell and tissue research · 2025Article
- Bridging basic science and clinical practice in orthopaedic translational research.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional cartilage regeneration remains difficult to achieve despite decades of research. Dozens of commercial products have been proposed, with each targeting different facets of successful cartilage engineering, including mechanical properties, integration, lubrication and inflammation; however, there remains a lack of breakthroughs in meaningful clinical outcomes. Prior research categorized commercial products based on their components and elucidated challenges faced during the market approval process. This paper, for the first time, comprehensively reviews the properties of commercial products covering the last 25 years, including design trends in components, compatibility with minimally invasive surgery, indications for cartilage defects, long-term follow-up, as well as active sponsorship support of the International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society (ICRS). We aim to summarize the key factors for potentially successful commercial products and elucidate overarching trends in technology development in this field. Given that no revolutionary products have yielded significantly improved clinical results, emerging products compete with one another on user-friendliness and cost-efficiency. Other relevant characteristics include compatibility with minimally invasive surgery, extensiveness of required surgery (one-stage vs. two-stage), use of versatile artificial polymers and application of cells and biomaterials. Specific products continue to lead the market due to their cost-efficiency or indications for larger cartilage defects. However, they have been shown to result in no significant improvement upon clinical follow-up. Thus, there is a need for products that surpass current commercial products and show clinical effectiveness.
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.