Dataset Information

TruFit Plug for Repair of Osteochondral Defects-Where Is the Evidence? Systematic Review of Literature.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Treatment of osteochondral defects remains a challenge in orthopedic surgery. The TruFit plug has been investigated as a potential treatment method for osteochondral defects. This is a biphasic scaffold designed to stimulate cartilage and subchondral bone formation. The aim of this study is to investigate clinical, radiological, and histological efficacy of the TruFit plug in restoring osteochondral defects in the joint.

Design

We performed a systematic search in five databases for clinical trials in which patients were treated with a TruFit plug for osteochondral defects. Studies had to report clinical, radiological, or histological outcome data. Quality of the included studies was assessed.

Results

Five studies describe clinical results, all indicating improvement at follow-up of 12 months compared to preoperative status. However, two studies reporting longer follow-up show deterioration of early improvement. Radiological evaluation indicates favorable MRI findings regarding filling of the defect and incorporation with adjacent cartilage at 24 months follow-up, but conflicting evidence exists on the properties of the newly formed overlying cartilage surface. None of the included studies showed evidence for bone ingrowth. The few histological data available confirmed these results.

Conclusion

There are no data available that support superiority or equality of TruFit compared to conservative treatment or mosaicplasty/microfracture. Further investigation is needed to improve synthetic biphasic implants as therapy for osteochondral lesions. Randomized controlled clinical trials comparing TruFit plugs with an established treatment method are needed before further clinical use can be supported.

SUBMITTER: Verhaegen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4462248 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

TruFit Plug for Repair of Osteochondral Defects-Where Is the Evidence? Systematic Review of Literature.

Verhaegen J J Clockaerts S S Van Osch G J V M GJ Somville J J Verdonk P P Mertens P P

Cartilage 20150101 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Treatment of osteochondral defects remains a challenge in orthopedic surgery. The TruFit plug has been investigated as a potential treatment method for osteochondral defects. This is a biphasic scaffold designed to stimulate cartilage and subchondral bone formation. The aim of this study is to investigate clinical, radiological, and histological efficacy of the TruFit plug in restoring osteochondral defects in the joint.<h4>Design</h4>We performed a systematic search in five da ...[more]

PMID: 26069706

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUntil now, the use of technology in health care was driven mostly by the assumptions about the benefits of electronic health (eHealth) rather than its evidence. It is noticeable that the magnitude of evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth is not proportionate to the number of interventions that are regularly conducted. Reliable evidence generated through comprehensive evaluation of eHealth interventions may accelerate the growth of eHealth for long-term successful implementation and help to experience eHealth benefits in an enhanced way.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand how the evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth can be generated through evaluation. Hence, we aim to discern (1) how evaluation is conducted in distinct eHealth intervention phases, (2) the aspects of effectiveness and efficiency that are typically evaluated during eHealth interventions, and (3) how eHealth interventions are evaluated in practice.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to explore the evaluation methods for eHealth interventions. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We searched Google Scholar and Scopus for the published papers that addressed the evaluation of eHealth or described an eHealth intervention study. A qualitative analysis of the selected papers was conducted in several steps.ResultsWe intended to see how the process of evaluation unfolds in distinct phases of an eHealth intervention. We revealed that in practice and in several conceptual papers, evaluation is performed at the end of the intervention. There are some studies that discuss the importance of conducting evaluation throughout the intervention; however, in practice, we found no case study that followed this. For our second research question, we discovered aspects of efficiency and effectiveness that are proposed to be assessed during interventions. The aspects that were recurrent in the conceptual papers include clinical, human and social, organizational, technological, cost, ethical and legal, and transferability. However, the case studies reviewed only evaluate the clinical and human and social aspects. At the end of the paper, we discussed a novel approach to look into the evaluation. Our intention was to stir up a discussion around this approach with the hope that it might be able to gather evidence in a comprehensive and credible way.ConclusionsThe importance of evidence in eHealth has not been discussed as rigorously as have the diverse evaluation approaches and evaluation frameworks. Further research directed toward evidence-based evaluation can not only improve the quality of intervention studies but also facilitate successful long-term implementation of eHealth in general. We conclude that the development of more robust and comprehensive evaluation of eHealth studies or an improved validation of evaluation methods could ease the transferability of results among similar studies. Thus, the resources can be used for supplementary research in eHealth.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Folate-sensitive neural tube defects (NTDs) are an important, preventable cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. There is a need to describe the current global burden of NTDs and identify gaps in available NTD data. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted a systematic review and searched multiple databases for NTD prevalence estimates and abstracted data from peer-reviewed literature, birth defects surveillance registries, and reports published between January 1990 and July 2014 that had greater than 5,000 births and were not solely based on mortality data. We classified countries according to World Health Organization (WHO) regions and World Bank income classifications. The initial search yielded 11,614 results; after systematic review we identified 160 full text manuscripts and reports that met the inclusion criteria. Data came from 75 countries. Coverage by WHO region varied in completeness (i.e., % of countries reporting) as follows: African (17%), Eastern Mediterranean (57%), European (49%), Americas (43%), South-East Asian (36%), and Western Pacific (33%). The reported NTD prevalence ranges and medians for each region were: African (5.2-75.4; 11.7 per 10,000 births), Eastern Mediterranean (2.1-124.1; 21.9 per 10,000 births), European (1.3-35.9; 9.0 per 10,000 births), Americas (3.3-27.9; 11.5 per 10,000 births), South-East Asian (1.9-66.2; 15.8 per 10,000 births), and Western Pacific (0.3-199.4; 6.9 per 10,000 births). The presence of a registry or surveillance system for NTDs increased with country income level: low income (0%), lower-middle income (25%), upper-middle income (70%), and high income (91%). CONCLUSIONS:Many WHO member states (120/194) did not have any data on NTD prevalence. Where data are collected, prevalence estimates vary widely. These findings highlight the need for greater NTD surveillance efforts, especially in lower-income countries. NTDs are an important public health problem that can be prevented with folic acid supplementation and fortification of staple foods.

Dataset Information

TruFit Plug for Repair of Osteochondral Defects-Where Is the Evidence? Systematic Review of Literature.

Objective

Design

Results

Conclusion

Publications

TruFit Plug for Repair of Osteochondral Defects-Where Is the Evidence? Systematic Review of Literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets