ArticleMedicine2020
All-inside versus inside-out suture techniques in arthroscopic meniscus repair: A prospective randomized study protocol.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transtibial Tunnel and Combined Hashtag Inside-Out Repair of Lateral Meniscus Radial Tear With Marrow Venting.Video journal of sports medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith advancements in our understanding of meniscal function, treatment options for meniscal injuries have evolved considerably over the past few decades. The aim of the current study was to compare the all-inside and inside-out techniques with regard to retear rate, functional outcomes, and perioperative complications in patients who had undergone arthroscopic meniscus repair. We hypothesized that there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative outcomes after arthroscopic meniscus repair.
methodsThis study was a prospective randomized blinded study, with a parallel design and an allocation ratio of 1:1 for the treatment groups. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board in our hospital and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects participating in the trial. It was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. A total of 70 patients who meet inclusion criteria are randomized to either all-inside or inside-out group. The primary outcome measure was retear rate. Retear was determined by repeat arthroscopic evaluation of patients with follow-up for symptoms of persistent or new pain, catching, or locking that was possibly related to the meniscal repair. Secondary outcomes included disease-specific quality of life measurement with the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool, range of motion, operative time, and adverse events at surgery or throughout the follow-up period.
resultsThis study has limited inclusion and exclusion criteria and a well-controlled intervention.
trial registrationThis study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5589).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.