ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
3D Geometry Scanning and Structural Integrity Assessment to Advance Meniscus Allograft Transplantation.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMeniscal allograft transplantation can restore joint biomechanics and alleviate symptoms, but its clinical use is limited by the scarcity of size-matched, structurally intact grafts. Current two-dimensional sizing and subjective inspection in tissue banks fail to capture complex three-dimensional geometry and subtle surface defects, highlighting the need for an accurate, reliable, and practical solution for routine donor tissue evaluation.
methodsWe developed an integrated system combining optical 3D scanning with curvature-based analysis for 3D geometry capture and surface defect detection in meniscus allografts. System performance was validated in terms of scanner accuracy and tissue bank workflow feasibility.
resultsThe system completes each scan within 2 versus ~ 60 min for micro-computed tomography (μCT). It demonstrated μCT-comparable accuracy (mean volume difference: 6.9%; surface deviation: 8.3%). Scanning through phosphate buffer saline (PBS)-immersed transparent bags yielded equivalent accuracy to scanning in air (mean volume difference: 7.2%; surface deviation: 12.5%). The workflow demonstrated high intra- and inter-operator reproducibility. Viability testing revealed PBS-preserved tissues maintained > 94% viability for 20 min, whereas air-exposed tissues dropped below 70% within 10 min. For defect assessment, curvature metrics reliably identified surface wear, longitudinal, and radial defects, with size measurements for wear and longitudinal tears showing equivalence (± 10% margin) to stereomicroscopy.
conclusionThis portable system enables accurate and rapid 3D scanning under tissue banking conditions and quantitative surface defect detection. It supports improved graft shape matching and surface defect screening, offering a practical and scalable solution for tissue banks and clinical settings, potentially extendable to other fibrocartilaginous and osteochondral tissues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42065816What 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.