Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 579

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study of Mosaic Osteochondral Autologous Transplantation Versus Microfracture for the Treatment of Osteochondral Defects in the Knee Joint in Young Athletes

Gudas, Rimtautas, Kalesinskas, Romas J., Kimtys, Vytautas, Stankevic̆ius, Edgaras, Tolius̆is, Vytautas, Bernotavic̆ius, Giedrius, Smailys, Alfredas·2005·Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of mosaic-type osteochondral autologous transplantation (OAT) and microfracture (MF) procedures for the treatment of the articular cartilage defects of the knee joint in young active athletes. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective randomized clinical study. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2002, a total of 60 athletes with a mean age of 24.3 years (range, 15 to 40 years) and with a symptomatic lesion of the articular cartilage in the knee were randomized to undergo either an OAT or an MF procedure. Only those athletes playing in competitive sports at regional or national levels were included in the study. Fifty-seven athletes (95%) were available for a follow-up. There were 28 athletes in the OAT group and 29 athletes in the MF group. The mean duration of symptoms was 21.32 +/- 5.57 months and the mean follow-up was 37.1 months (range, 36 to 38 months), and none of the athletes had prior surgical interventions to the affected knee. Patients were evaluated using modified Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) and International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) scores, radiograph, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and clinical assessment. An independent observer performed a follow-up examination after 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. At 12.4 months postoperatively, arthroscopy with biopsy for histologic evaluation was carried out. A radiologist and a pathologist, both of whom were blinded to each patient's treatment, did the radiologic and histologic evaluations. RESULTS: After 37.1 months, both groups had significant clinical improvement (P < .05). According to the modified HSS and ICRS scores, functional and objective assessment showed that 96% had excellent or good results after OAT compared with 52% for the MF procedure (P < .001). At 12, 24, and 36 months after surgery, the HSS and ICRS showed statistically significantly better results in the OAT group (P = .03; P = .006; P = .006). Younger athletes did better in both groups. No serious complications were reported. There was 1 failure in the OAT group and 9 in the MF group. The ICRS Cartilage Repair Assessment for macroscopic evaluation during arthroscopy at 12.4 months showed excellent or good repairs in 84% after OAT and in 57% after MF. Biopsy specimens were obtained from 58% of the patients and histologic evaluation of repair showed better scores (according to ICRS) for the OAT group (P < .05). MRI evaluation showed excellent or good repairs in 94% after OAT compared with 49% after MF. Twenty-six (93%) OAT patients and 15 (52%) MF patients returned to sports activities at the preinjury level at an average of 6.5 months (range, 4 to 8 months). Others showed a decline in sports activity level. CONCLUSIONS: At an average of 37.1 months (range, 36 to 38 months) follow-up, our prospective, randomized, clinical study in young active athletes under the age of 40 has shown significant superiority of OAT over MF for the repair of articular cartilage defects in the knee. We found that only 52% of MF athletes could return to sports at the preinjury level. Limitations of our study included a small number of athletes and a relatively short (3-year) follow-up. A long-term follow-up is needed to assess the durability of articular cartilage repair using these methods in young active athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, Therapeutic study, randomized controlled trial, significant difference (a).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.06.018

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 579

Metadata

Authors
Gudas, R., Kalesinskas, R. J., Kimtys, V., Stankevic̆ius, E., Tolius̆is, V., Bernotavic̆ius, G., & Smailys, A.
Venue
Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-09
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
1066-1075
ISSN
0749-8063 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133096089
Cited by
579
References
13
FWCI
10.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study of Mosaic Osteochondral Autologous Transplantation Versus Microfracture for the Treatment of Osteochondral Defects in the Knee Joint in Young Athletes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.arthro.2005.06.018
The paper
Gudas, R., Kalesinskas, R. J., Kimtys, V., Stankevic̆ius, E., Tolius̆is, V., Bernotavic̆ius, G., & Smailys, A. (2005). A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study of Mosaic Osteochondral Autologous Transplantation Versus Microfracture for the Treatment of Osteochondral Defects in the Knee Joint in Young Athletes. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2005.06.018

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.