ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of implant-specific outcomes in inlay and onlay patellofemoral arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes and complication rates between inlay and onlay patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). A secondary objective was to evaluate implant-specific performance among various prosthetic designs. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database to identify studies published between January 1980 and 20 January 2025. Studies were included if they reported functional outcomes and complication rates for inlay or onlay PFA with a mean follow-up of 5 years. The majority of included studies were Level III or IV observational studies; therefore, the strength of the evidence is limited and conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Results: Seventy-six studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 4484 patients and 5084 implants. Onlay prostheses were associated with significantly higher rates of good to excellent outcomes (88% vs. 76%, Conclusion: Onlay PFA appears to offer clinical advantages over inlay designs in the treatment of isolated PFOA, with trends toward superior functional outcomes, lower complication and revision rates, and more consistent performance across models. However, these results should be interpreted in light of the predominance of non-randomized studies and the heterogeneity of the available literature. The findings support the preferential use of onlay implants, particularly the Avon and Gender Solutions designs. Implant selection should be guided by evidence-based performance and patient-specific anatomical considerations. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.