ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Retrospective Comparison of Outcomes of Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation of the Knee Using Extended Storage Modality Missouri Osteochondral Preservation System Versus Standard Preservation.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation is an established surgical intervention for full-thickness chondral defects. Standard preservation (SP) protocols currently allow for OCAs to be stored for a maximum of 28 days after procurement before significant chondrocyte death. An alternative protocol, the Missouri Osteochondral Allograft Preservation System (MOPS), has been shown to allow for grafts to be stored for twice the maximum time allotment as SP. Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes in patients who have undergone OCA transplantation utilizing the extended storage capabilities of the MOPS versus SP protocols. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent OCA transplantation from 2012 to 2018 were retrospectively identified. Patients without appropriate follow-up, postoperative outcomes, or necessary preoperative imaging were excluded. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up data. Patient characteristics, outcomes, and graft information were compared between patients who received grafts preserved by MOPS versus SP as previously defined. Results: In total, 64 patients were included: 25 were in the MOPS group and 39 in the SP group. Members of the MOPS group were significantly younger at the time of surgery than those in the SP group (28.6 ± 10.7 years vs 36.7 ± 10.9 years; Conclusion: OCAs preserved using the MOPS can be stored at greater than twice the storage duration of grafts preserved with SP techniques without a significant difference in postoperative outcomes.
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.