Studies of Articular Cartilage Repair from 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis of Articles

Duan, Wei; Huang, Lingan; Dong, Zhengquan; Li, Haoqian; Guo, Li; Song, Wenjie; Yang, Yaning; Li, Pengcui; Wei, Xiaochun

doi:10.1111/os.12888

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Articular cartilage lesions of the knee are extremely common, with a high morbidity rate of 5% in the general population, and are characterized by the progressive loss of joint function and development of pain. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Currently, traditional conservative treatments for knee cartilage lesions include nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, glucosamine, hyaluronic acid, and glucocorticoids. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 However, as these therapies have limited therapeutic efficacy in the healing of cartilage lesions, their long‐term efficacy is uncertain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Efficacy of Intra‐Articular Injection with P‐PRP Versus that of L‐PRP in Treating Knee Cartilage Lesion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Zhou

Cao

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate the clinical e cacy and safety of intra-articular injection with pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) versus those of leukocyte platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP) in treating knee cartilage lesions, we conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial with a larger sample and longer followup period.Methods: From October 2019 to October 2020, 95 patients were invited to participate in our study, and 60 (63.2%) were randomized to P-PRP (n = 30) or L-PRP (n = 30) groups. Patients from the two groups were treated with knee intra-articular injections of P-PRP or L-PRP. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were assessed preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after intervention.Results: We followed up 27 cases in the P-PRP group and 26 cases in the L-PRP group. No signi cant differences in VAS and WOMAC scores were found between the two groups before the intervention (P>0.05). The WOMAC Pain and VAS-Motions scores of the P-PRP group were signi cantly lower than those of the L-PRP group at 6 weeks after the intervention (P<0.05). While the long-term clinical e cacy of both injections was similar and weakened after 12 months, more adverse events were found in the L-PRP group.Conclusions: The short-term results of our study are encouraging and demonstrate that both L-PRP and P-PRP intra-articular injections reduce pain and improve function in patients with knee cartilage lesions.Compared with the L-PRP injection, the P-PRP injection (which had a lower risk of early in ammation caused by leukocytes) showed better clinical e cacy in the early phase of postoperative rehabilitation and resulted in fewer adverse events. However, long-term clinical e cacy for both injections were similar and weakened after 12 months.Trial registration: ChiCTR1900026365. Registered on 3 October 2019, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=43911.(RCT) to evaluate the therapeutic e cacy of P-PRP versus that of L-PRP in treating knee cartilage lesions. Methods Trial designThis double-blind, RCT of Evidence Level I compared the safety and e cacy of P-PRP with those of L-PRP in Chinese patients with knee cartilage lesions. This clinical trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1900026365), approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committees of the hospital of the authors [CZEC (2017)-04], and followed the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committees and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants in the study. From October 2019 to October 2020, 60 patients with knee cartilage lesions were recruited to participate in this study the hospital of the authors. Trial participantsThe following inclusion criteria were used for patient selection: 1. Patients between the ages of 18 and 75 years. MRI clearly indicated articular cartilage injury, and the Kellgren-Lawrence standard knee grade was not more than level-3. 3. Patients with obvi...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Efficacy of Intra‐Articular Injection with P‐PRP Versus that of L‐PRP in Treating Knee Cartilage Lesion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Zhou

Cao

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the high cost and technically demanding process have limited their application, and the outcomes remain unclear. Autologous osteochondral transplantation (AOCT) has been proven to be effective in treating large cystic talar OCLs and is often regarded as a standard protocol 9–13 . The autografts in AOCT are taken from the nonweightbearing area of the distal femoral joint surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Autologous osteochondral transplantation (AOCT) has been proven to be effective in treating large cystic talar OCLs and is often regarded as a standard protocol. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 The autografts in AOCT are taken from the nonweightbearing area of the distal femoral joint surface. However, the main problem in AOCT is that donor site morbidity could be as high as 50%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autologous Osteoperiosteal Transplantation for the Treatment of Large Cystic Talar Osteochondral Lesions

Guo

Chen

Wei

et al. 2022

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The effectiveness of autologous osteoperiosteal transplantation (AOPT) for the treatment of large cystic talar osteochondral lesions (OCLs) should be further evaluated, and the postoperative cartilage coverage is questionable. The purpose of this retrospective observational study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of AOPT for the treatment of large cystic talar OCLs and to report second-look arthroscopic results. Methods:From June 1, 2017, to June 1, 2021, all talar OCLs at our center were reviewed. Painful cystic lesions treated with AOPT were included in the study. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS; 0-100 points) ankle-hindfoot score, Foot Function Index (FFI; 0-100 points), visual analog scale (VAS; 0-10 points) score, and Tegner score (0-10 points) were used to describe pain and functional outcomes. Furthermore, complications, patient-reported satisfaction degrees, imaging results (including computed tomography and magnetic resonance), and second-look arthroscopic evaluation data were also collected for analysis.Results: A total of 29 cases were eligible for the study, and 26 responded to the latest follow-up request, with a mean follow-up duration of 30.2 (range, 12-57) months. The AOFAS score improved from 69.2 AE 10.9 preoperatively to 80.9 AE 10.0 at the latest follow-up (p = 0.000). The FFI score improved from 30.4 AE 18.4 preoperatively to 16.3 AE 14.0 at the latest follow-up (p = 0.000). The VAS pain score improved from 4.0 AE 2.1 preoperatively to 2.5 AE 2.0 at the latest follow-up (p = 0.001). No donor site morbidity was found. The mean postoperative MOCART score was 57.7 AE 9.5. Second-look arthroscopy showed a fibrillated cartilage-like surface at the lesion site in most cases, while two cases exhibited a nearly normal surface. Conclusion:The transplantation of osteoperiosteal cylinder autografts taken from the iliac crest for the treatment of large cystic talar OCLs yielded acceptable clinical results. Good integration of the bony part was observed, but cartilage regeneration remained uncertain.

show abstract

“…23 Articular cartilage lacks nerves and a vascular supply; therefore, its nutrition is supplied by the synovial fluid and arterial branches around the synovial membrane layer of the articular capsule. 31,33,106 Once the articular cartilage is damaged or degraded, its capacity to repair and heal is limited. 114,120,121 Articular cartilage defects can be caused by various causes, such as trauma, degeneration, avascular necrosis, osteochondritis dissecans, or osteoarthritis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes After Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation for Treating Articular Cartilage Defects: Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis of Studies From 2001 to 2020

Wang,

Ren,

Liu

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) treats symptomatic focal cartilage defects with satisfactory clinical results. Purpose: To comprehensively analyze the characteristics and clinical outcomes of OCA for treating articular cartilage defects. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: We searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science for studies published between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2020, on OCA for treating articular cartilage defects. Publication information, patient data, osteochondral allograft storage details, and clinical outcomes were extracted to conduct a comprehensive summative analysis. Results: In total, 105 studies involving 5952 patients were included. The annual reported number of patients treated with OCA increased from 69 in 2001 to 1065 in 2020, peaking at 1504 cases in 2018. Most studies (90.1%) were performed in the United States. The mean age at surgery was 34.2 years, and 60.8% of patients were male and had a mean body mass index of 26.7 kg/m2. The mean lesion area was 5.05 cm2, the mean follow-up duration was 54.39 months, the mean graft size was 6.85 cm2, and the number of grafts per patient was 54.7. The failure rate after OCA was 18.8%, and 83.1% of patients reported satisfactory results. Allograft survival rates at 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years were 94%, 87.9%, 80%, 73%, 55%, and 59.4%, respectively. OCA was mainly performed on the knee (88.9%). The most common diagnosis in the knee was osteochondritis dissecans (37.9%), and the most common defect location was the medial femoral condyle (52%). The most common concomitant procedures were high tibial osteotomy (28.4%) and meniscal allograft transplantation (24.7%). After OCA failure, 54.7% of patients underwent revision with primary total knee arthroplasty. Conclusion: The annual reported number of patients who underwent OCA showed a significant upward trend, especially from 2016 to 2020. Patients receiving OCA were predominantly young male adults with a high body mass index. OCA was more established for knee cartilage than an injury at other sites, and its best indication was osteochondritis dissecans. This analysis demonstrated satisfactory long-term postoperative outcomes.

show abstract

Studies of Articular Cartilage Repair from 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis of Articles

Abstract: Objective: To perform a bibliometric analysis of research on articular cartilage repair published in Chinese and English over the past decade. Fundamental and clinical research topics of high interest were further comparatively analyzed.

Cited by 5 publications

References 46 publications

Clinical Efficacy of Intra‐Articular Injection with P‐PRP Versus that of L‐PRP in Treating Knee Cartilage Lesion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Clinical Efficacy of Intra‐Articular Injection with P‐PRP Versus that of L‐PRP in Treating Knee Cartilage Lesion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Autologous Osteoperiosteal Transplantation for the Treatment of Large Cystic Talar Osteochondral Lesions

Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes After Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation for Treating Articular Cartilage Defects: Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis of Studies From 2001 to 2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About