Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Articular Cartilage Regeneration With Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cells Versus Hyaluronic Acid: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Saw, Khay-Yong, Anz, Adam, Siew-Yoke Jee, Caroline, Merican, Shahrin, Ching-Soong Ng, Reza, Roohi, Sharifah A., Ragavanaidu, Kunaseegaran·2013·Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare histologic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation of articular cartilage regeneration in patients with chondral lesions treated by arthroscopic subchondral drilling followed by postoperative intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) with and without peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC). METHODS: Fifty patients aged 18 to 50 years with International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade 3 and 4 lesions of the knee joint underwent arthroscopic subchondral drilling; 25 patients each were randomized to the control (HA) and the intervention (PBSC + HA) groups. Both groups received 5 weekly injections commencing 1 week after surgery. Three additional injections of either HA or PBSC + HA were given at weekly intervals 6 months after surgery. Subjective IKDC scores and MRI scans were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively at serial visits. We performed second-look arthroscopy and biopsy at 18 months on 16 patients in each group. We graded biopsy specimens using 14 components of the International Cartilage Repair Society Visual Assessment Scale II (ICRS II) and a total score was obtained. MRI scans at 18 months were assessed with a morphologic scoring system. RESULTS: The total ICRS II histologic scores for the control group averaged 957 and they averaged 1,066 for the intervention group (P = .022). On evaluation of the MRI morphologic scores, the control group averaged 8.5 and the intervention group averaged 9.9 (P = .013). The mean 24-month IKDC scores for the control and intervention groups were 71.1 and 74.8, respectively (P = .844). One patient was lost to follow-up. There were no notable adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: After arthroscopic subchondral drilling into grade 3 and 4 chondral lesions, postoperative intra-articular injections of autologous PBSC in combination with HA resulted in an improvement of the quality of articular cartilage repair over the same treatment without PBSC, as shown by histologic and MRI evaluation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, randomized controlled trial (RCT).

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.2012.12.008

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Saw, K.-Y., Anz, A., Siew-Yoke Jee, C., Merican, S., Ching-Soong Ng, R., Roohi, S. A., & Ragavanaidu, K.
Venue
Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
684-694
ISSN
0749-8063 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116070321
Cited by
267
References
1
FWCI
19.62
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

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.