Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34195666›Full record

ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021

Repair of Radial Meniscus Tears Results in Improved Patient-Reported Outcome Scores: A Systematic Review.

Eric M Milliron, Robert A Magnussen, Parker A Cavendish, John P Quinn, Alex C DiBartola, David C Flanigan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Risk Factors for Failure of Meniscal Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Chitosan/Platelet-Rich Plasma Implants in an Ovine Arthroscopic Model of Meniscus Repair.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025
    Article
  11. Redefining Failure: Criteria for Unsuccessful Outcomes in Meniscus Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Eric M MillironCollege of Medicine, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Robert A MagnussenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Parker A CavendishCollege of Medicine, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
John P QuinnCollege of Medicine, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Alex C DiBartolaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
David C FlaniganDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo quantify healing rates and patient-reported outcome scores following repair of radial meniscus tears.

methodsPubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria included: human subjects with meniscal tears, full-text English language, average follow-up of at 1 year, and publication after the 2000. Exclusion criteria included technical, biomechanical, and cadaveric studies. Study quality was assessed using Coleman Methodology Scores and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria.

resultsTwelve studies reported on the repair of 243 radial tears in 241 patients. The mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score was 46.8, range 26-60, with a mean level of evidence of 3.5. Arthroscopic techniques were used in all studies, with 1 study using an arthroscopic-assisted 2-tunnel trans-tibial pullout technique. The mean patient age was 32 years (11-71). The mean follow-up was 35 months (12 to 75.6). The average time to surgery was 10.9 months (0.5-22.4). Eight of the 12 studies reported concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, with 64% having concomitant ACL injury. The most common outcome measure was the Lysholm score, which improved from 47-68.9 preoperatively to 86.4-95.6 postoperatively. Tegner Activity Scale improved from 2.5-3.1 preoperatively to 4.7-6.7 postoperatively. Healing rates were reported via magnetic resonance imaging and second-look arthroscopy. Second-look arthroscopy was performed for a variety of indications, including removal of screw, washers or plates, dissatisfaction with original procedure, partial healing found on magnetic resonance imaging, or desire of the patient to know the true healing status before return to sport. Of those assessed, 62.0% had complete healing, 30.0% partial healing, and 8.0% failure to heal.

conclusionsPatient-reported outcomes of radial meniscus repair with and without ACL reconstruction are encouraging, with high patient-reported outcomes reported at final follow-up when compared with preoperative scores. Among all meniscus repairs assessed for healing, the majority demonstrated at least some healing with an overall low rate of failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; systematic review of level III-IV studies.

Identifiers

PMID34195666
PMCPMC8220631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.