Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41625506›Full record

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.

Henson Destine, Gaston Davis, Harrison Fellheimer, Azra Dees, Nathaniel Kern, Bradford Tucker, Kevin Freedman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Henson DestineRothman Orthopaedic Institute at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Gaston DavisRothman Orthopaedic Institute at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Harrison FellheimerRothman Orthopaedic Institute at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Azra DeesRothman Orthopaedic Institute at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Nathaniel KernRothman Orthopaedic Institute at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Bradford TuckerRothman Orthopaedic Institute at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kevin FreedmanRothman Orthopaedic Institute at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cartilagechondral defectskneeMissouri Osteochondral Allograft Preservation Systemosteochondral allograft transplantation

Identifiers

PMID41625506
PMCPMC12855777

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.