ArticleCartilage2026
Repair of Full Thickness Articular Cartilage Using a 3D-Printed Acellular Polymer Implant in a Caprine Model: A Pilot Study.
Article in Cartilage, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveEvaluate a 3D-printed acellular polymer scaffold combined with microfracture for repairing critical-sized cartilage defects in a goat model.MethodsSix goats received bilateral 10 mm femoral condyle defects. In a paired design, one knee received microfracture plus a scaffold (95% or 45% infill); the contralateral control received microfracture alone (final n = 6). At 16 weeks, repair was assessed via histology (modified ICRS II), immunohistochemistry, and polarized light microscopy. Histological analysis included three scaffold-treated and three control defects; others were excluded due to loosening or processing issues. The pathologist was unblinded. The scaffold contains non-resorbable, non-degradable nylon 12; remnants persist permanently.ResultsThe 95% infill scaffold handled poorly with poor integration. The 45% infill scaffold demonstrated superior handling and integration, achieving significantly higher median ICRS II scores than microfracture alone (44 vs. 33, p < 0.05), with enhanced cellularity, zonal organization, and type II collagen. Scaffold remnants were surrounded by CD68-positive macrophages, indicating a chronic foreign body response to the non-resorbable material, with associated neovascularization.ConclusionThe 45% infill scaffold improved histological cartilage repair versus microfracture alone at 16 weeks. These preliminary findings support its selection for pivotal studies with larger samples, longer follow-up, and blinded assessment. However, because nylon 12 is non-resorbable, remnants persist permanently, with important implications for long-term stability, safety, biocompatibility, and the mechanism of tissue repair. Results should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size and short follow-up.
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.