Kristofer J Jones1,2, William L Sheppard2, Armin Arshi1, Betina B Hinckel3, Seth L Sherman3. 1. 1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 2. 2 David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. 3 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Missouri Health, Columbia, MO, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the degree of standardized evaluation and reporting of cartilage lesion characteristics in high-impact clinical studies for symptomatic lesions of the knee. We hypothesized that there are significant inconsistencies in reporting these metrics across orthopedic literature. DESIGN: A total of 113 clinical studies on articular cartilage restoration of the knee were identified from 6 high-impact orthopedic journals between 2011 and 2016. Full-text review was used to evaluate sources for details on study methodology and reporting on the following variables: primary procedure, location, size, grade, and morphology of cartilage lesions. RESULTS: All studies reported on the type of primary cartilage procedure and precise lesion location(s). Approximately 99.1% reported lesion morphology (chondral, osteochondral, mixed). For lesion size, 32.7% of articles did not report how size was measured and 11.5% did not report units. The lesion sizing method was variable, as 27.4% used preoperative magnetic resonance imaging to measure/report lesion size, 31.0% used arthroscopy, and 8.8% used both. The majority of studies (83.2%) used area to report size, and 5.3% used diameter. Formal grading was not reported in 17.7% of studies. Only 54.8% of studies reported depth when sizing osteochondral defects. CONCLUSIONS: Recent literature on cartilage restoration provides adequate information on surgical technique, lesion location, and morphology. However, there is wide variation and incomplete reporting on lesion size, depth, and grading. Future clinical studies should include these important data in a consistent manner to facilitate comparison among surgical techniques.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the degree of standardized evaluation and reporting of cartilage lesion characteristics in high-impact clinical studies for symptomatic lesions of the knee. We hypothesized that there are significant inconsistencies in reporting these metrics across orthopedic literature. DESIGN: A total of 113 clinical studies on articular cartilage restoration of the knee were identified from 6 high-impact orthopedic journals between 2011 and 2016. Full-text review was used to evaluate sources for details on study methodology and reporting on the following variables: primary procedure, location, size, grade, and morphology of cartilage lesions. RESULTS: All studies reported on the type of primary cartilage procedure and precise lesion location(s). Approximately 99.1% reported lesion morphology (chondral, osteochondral, mixed). For lesion size, 32.7% of articles did not report how size was measured and 11.5% did not report units. The lesion sizing method was variable, as 27.4% used preoperative magnetic resonance imaging to measure/report lesion size, 31.0% used arthroscopy, and 8.8% used both. The majority of studies (83.2%) used area to report size, and 5.3% used diameter. Formal grading was not reported in 17.7% of studies. Only 54.8% of studies reported depth when sizing osteochondral defects. CONCLUSIONS: Recent literature on cartilage restoration provides adequate information on surgical technique, lesion location, and morphology. However, there is wide variation and incomplete reporting on lesion size, depth, and grading. Future clinical studies should include these important data in a consistent manner to facilitate comparison among surgical techniques.
Authors: Raman Mundi; Asheesh Bedi; Linda Chow; Sarah Crouch; Nicole Simunovic; Elizabeth Sibilsky Enselman; Olufemi R Ayeni Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Gunnar Knutsen; Jon Olav Drogset; Lars Engebretsen; Torbjørn Grøntvedt; Tom C Ludvigsen; Sverre Løken; Eirik Solheim; Torbjørn Strand; Oddmund Johansen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Scott R Montgomery; Brock D Foster; Stephanie S Ngo; Rodney D Terrell; Jeffrey C Wang; Frank A Petrigliano; David R McAllister Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Syed Z Nawaz; George Bentley; Timothy W R Briggs; Richard W J Carrington; John A Skinner; Kieran R Gallagher; Baljinder S Dhinsa Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Gustavo A Orozco; Atte S A Eskelinen; Joonas P Kosonen; Matthew S Tanaka; Mingrui Yang; Thomas M Link; Benjamin Ma; Xiaojuan Li; Alan J Grodzinsky; Rami K Korhonen; Petri Tanska Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: Rosa S Valtanen; Armin Arshi; Benjamin V Kelley; Peter D Fabricant; Kristofer J Jones Journal: Cartilage Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Tizian Heinz; Felix Meller; Karsten Sebastian Luetkens; Konstantin Horas; Thomas Schäfer; Maximilian Rudert; Stephan Reppenhagen; Manuel Weißenberger Journal: J Exp Orthop Date: 2022-08-19