Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 895

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation with Microfracture: Findings at Five Years

Knutsen, Gunnar, Isaksen, Vidar, Johansen, Oddmund, Drogset, Jon Olav, Grøntvedt, Torbjørn, Engebretsen, Lars, Ludvigsen, Tom C., Roberts, Sally, Solheim, Eirik, Strand, Torbjørn·2007·The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for cartilage lesions has not yet been established. The objective of this randomized trial was to compare autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture. This paper represents an update, with presentation of the clinical results at five years. METHODS: Eighty patients who had a single chronic symptomatic cartilage defect on the femoral condyle in a stable knee without general osteoarthritis were included in the study. Forty patients were treated with autologous chondrocyte implantation, and forty were treated with microfracture. We used the International Cartilage Repair Society, Lysholm, Short Form-36, and Tegner forms to collect clinical data, and radiographs were evaluated with use of the Kellgren and Lawrence grading system. RESULTS: At two and five years, both groups had significant clinical improvement compared with the preoperative status. At the five-year follow-up interval, there were nine failures (23%) in both groups compared with two failures of the autologous chondrocyte implantation and one failure of the microfracture treatment at two years. Younger patients did better in both groups. We did not find a correlation between histological quality and clinical outcome. However, none of the patients with the best-quality cartilage (predominantly hyaline) at the two-year mark had a later failure. One-third of the patients in both groups had radiographic evidence of early osteoarthritis at five years. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods provided satisfactory results in 77% of the patients at five years. There was no significant difference in the clinical and radiographic results between the two treatment groups and no correlation between the histological findings and the clinical outcome. One-third of the patients had early radiographic signs of osteoarthritis five years after the surgery. Further long-term follow-up is needed to determine if one method is better than the other and to study the progression of osteoarthritis.

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 · 10.2106/00004623-200710000-00002

Cites

24 of 24 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 24 references

Cited by

See all 895

Metadata

Authors
Knutsen, G., Isaksen, V., Johansen, O., Drogset, J. O., Grøntvedt, T., Engebretsen, L., Ludvigsen, T. C., Roberts, S., Solheim, E., & Strand, T.
Venue
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume
Published
2007-10
Volume
89
Issue
10
Pages
2105-2112
ISSN
0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2145932168
Cited by
895
References
24
FWCI
37.85
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 Randomized Trial Comparing Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation with Microfracture: Findings at Five Years. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2106/00004623-200710000-00002
The paper
Knutsen, G., Isaksen, V., Johansen, O., Drogset, J. O., Grøntvedt, T., Engebretsen, L., Ludvigsen, T. C., Roberts, S., Solheim, E., & Strand, T. (2007). A Randomized Trial Comparing Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation with Microfracture: Findings at Five Years. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200710000-00002

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.