Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41221333›Full record

ReviewAnnals of joint2025

Osteochondral solutions for cartilage lesions of the knee: a narrative review.

Jelle P van der List, Parker A Cavendish, Eric M Milliron, Emma Flanigan, David C Flanigan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of joint, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Jelle P van der ListDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7940-5152
Parker A CavendishDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8126-3352
Eric M MillironDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5796-8942
Emma FlaniganDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
David C FlaniganDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9491-7041

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Cartilage lesions of the knee occur frequently and can cause debilitating symptoms such as pain, swelling, locking, clicking, or catching. In some lesions, both the cartilage and underlying subchondral bone are affected, which may require treatment of both the osseous and cartilaginous units. The objective of this review was to assess the available evidence of advanced treatments for osteochondral lesions in the knee. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for a narrative review on studies reporting outcomes of osteochondral knee treatments. Studies were included if they reported outcomes at minimum 1-year follow-up and had minimum 5 patients, and biomechanical, translational and basic science studies were excluded. Key Content and Findings: In addition to chondroplasty and microfracture, four major advanced osteochondral restoration procedures aimed at treating injuries to the osteochondral unit were identified in the literature, which consisted of surgical internal fixation of either acute osteochondral fragments or osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions, osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT), osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation and biphasic scaffold implantation. Internal fixation of acute osteochondral patellofemoral fractures has been found to have superior outcomes compared to fragment removal, but does require concomitant patellar stabilization. Fixation of OCD also leads to good outcomes without superiority for fixation method. Osteochondral autograft is an excellent treatment option for smaller defects and has a high rate of return to sport. OCA outcomes are excellent with good survival rates although reoperations can frequently occur. Finally, biphasic scaffolds are relatively recent and can be used in both more acute as well as more degenerative settings and the short-term outcomes are promising. Conclusions: Osteochondral injury in the knee requires unique treatment options as both the underlying bone and cartilage need to be treated, due to their poor healing capacity and significant cause of morbidity. Several treatment options exist and the overall outcomes of these treatments are satisfactory in improving patient-reported outcomes, and most patients can return to activities.

Indexed as

allograftautograftcartilageOsteochondralrefixation

Identifiers

PMID41221333
PMCPMC12598431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.