The DOI matches its Crossref record.
EVALUATION OF CARTILAGE INJURIES AND REPAIR
Abstract
Articular cartilage injuries ( Fig. 1 ) are common findings during arthroscopy 1 and diagnostic imaging of the joints 2,3. While there are many techniques for the treatment of cartilage injuries, not enough is known about which lesions need treatment or about the proper treatment modality for a particular lesion. More objective data regarding cartilage injuries and more accurate methods to evaluate the operative outcomes are required, especially since new procedures are becoming increasingly expensive. There are many published reports on the outcomes of total joint replacement based on clinical scores and radiographic evaluations. However, it has been quite difficult to interpret the reported results of the repair of focal cartilage defects as there is no universally accepted system to describe the lesions, the repair tissue, or the clinical symptoms for this category of patients. More studies on clinical articular cartilage resurfacing will appear in the future, making it important to develop common evaluation measurement tools and standards. The International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) was founded in 1997 and has been interested in developing a standardization system for the evaluation of cartilage injury and repair 4,5. A working group of the ICRS was established with the aim of developing a common, easy system for clinical and arthroscopic evaluation ( Table I ). Shortly thereafter, the Articular Cartilage Imaging Committee of the ICRS was created to assess the existing clinical imaging techniques, to recommend specific magnetic resonance imaging techniques for the assessment of articular cartilage 6, and to develop a standardized magnetic resonance imaging evaluation system for native and repaired cartilage ( Table I ). A state-of-the-art system for clinical cartilage evaluation and imaging assessment is presented below. Fig. 1: A cartilage lesion on a femoral condyle, extending deep down to bone. Note that some calcified …
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Wong, K. L., Lee, K. B. L., Tai, B. C., Law, P., Lee, E. H., & Hui, J. H. P. (2013) · Arthroscopy · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2013.09.074 · Cited by 394
In situ handheld three‐dimensional bioprinting for cartilage regeneration
Di Bella, C., Duchi, S., O'Connell, C. D., Blanchard, R., Augustine, C., Yue, Z., Thompson, F., Richards, C., Beirne, S., Onofrillo, C., et al. (2018) · Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine · doi:10.1002/term.2476 · Cited by 313
Orchestrated biomechanical, structural, and biochemical stimuli for engineering anisotropic meniscus
Zhang, Z.-Z., Chen, Y.-R., Wang, S.-J., Zhao, F., Wang, X.-G., Yang, F., Shi, J.-J., Ge, Z.-G., Ding, W.-Y., Yang, Y.-C., et al. (2019) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aao0750 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- BRITTBERG, M., & WINALSKI, C. S.
- Venue
- The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 85
- Pages
- 58-69
- ISSN
- 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1945216193
- Cited by
- 1,340
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.33
- 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.