ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
The effects of radiofrequency on cartilage: A systematic review of preclinical evidence in animals and humans.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. 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.
- The effects of radiofrequency on cartilage: A systematic review of preclinical evidence in animals and humans.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Radiofrequency works by applying continuous waveforms which ablate the surface of the cartilage. Despite its utility, the limits and possible risks of this technology have not been thoroughly investigated in the literature. This review aims to systematically summarise the most recent studies regarding the effects of the various radiofrequency on cartilage and compare the side effects they may bring. Methods: A search following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted on scientific databases: Web of Science, Embase CINAHL, ProQuest and Medline from May 2021 to January 2025. The databases were searched from their inception to September 2023. Only articles in English were included. In vivo, ex vivo, cadaveric, and in vitro studies were all included. To assess the risk of bias, Rob2 and ROBINS-I were used. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included in this systematic review. The level of evidence of the included studies ranged from level II to III. The most analysed specimen was human tissue, followed by swine, ovine, bovine, equine, canine and rabbit. Cartilage damage was reported in most of the articles. Monopolar radiofrequency was considered safer than bipolar radiofrequency. However, controversial results were found on the superiority of radiofrequency energy to mechanical debridement. Conclusion: This review shows that there is not enough evidence to precisely identify the possible dangers or benefits that may come from the use of radiofrequency energy on cartilage. Therefore, the real risks of radiofrequency are not fully explored. Further research needs to include radiofrequency energy in the clinical and surgical environment. Level of Evidence: Level II, evidence from one or more well designs randomised control trials (RCT).
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.