↓ Skip to main content

A Pre-Clinical Test Platform for the Functional Evaluation of Scaffolds for Musculoskeletal Defects: The Meniscus

Overview of attention for article published in HSS Journal®, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
A Pre-Clinical Test Platform for the Functional Evaluation of Scaffolds for Musculoskeletal Defects: The Meniscus
Published in
HSS Journal®, January 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11420-010-9188-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne A. Maher, Scott A. Rodeo, Hollis G. Potter, Lawrence J. Bonassar, Timothy M. Wright, Russell F. Warren

Abstract

In an attempt to delay the progression of osteoarthritis from an index injury, early intervention via repair of injured musculoskeletal soft tissue has been advocated. Despite the development of a number of scaffolds intended to treat soft tissue defects, information about their functional performance is lacking. The goal of this study was to consolidate a suite of in vitro and in vivo models into a pre-clinical test platform to assess the functional performance of meniscal repair scaffolds. Our objective was to assess the ability of a scaffold (Actifit™; Orteq, UK) to carry load without detrimentally abrading against articular cartilage. Three test modules were used to assess the functional performance of meniscal repair scaffolds. The first module tested the ability of the scaffold to carry load in an in vitro model designed to measure the change in normal contact stress magnitude on the tibial plateau of cadaveric knees after scaffold implantation. The second module assessed the in vitro frictional coefficient of the scaffold against cartilage to assess the likelihood that the scaffold would destructively abrade against articular cartilage in vivo. The third module consisted of an assessment of functional performance in vivo by measuring the structure and composition of articular cartilage across the tibial plateau 12 months after scaffold implantation in an ovine model. In vitro, the scaffold improved contact mechanics relative to a partly meniscectomized knee suggesting that, in vivo, less damage would be seen in the scaffold implanted knees vs. partly meniscectomized knees. However, there was no significant difference in the condition of articular cartilage between the two groups. Moreover, in spite of the high coefficient of friction between the scaffold and articular cartilage, there was no significant damage in the articular cartilage underneath the scaffold. The discrepancy between the in vitro and in vivo models was likely influenced by the abundant tissue generated within the scaffold and the unexpected tissue that regenerated within the site of the partial meniscectomy. We are currently augmenting our suite of tests so that we can pre-clinically evaluate the functional performance at time zero and as a function of time after implantation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 54 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 23%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 16 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,454,829
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from HSS Journal®
#116
of 500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,373
of 192,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HSS Journal®
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them