ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
Good Surgical Outcomes After Concomitant Repair of Double Radial Tears of the Lateral Meniscus and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient and Chondral Defect-Specific Characteristics an Associated Matrix-Induced Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Conversion Rates Following Biopsy.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Restricted postoperative range‑of‑motion and weight‑bearing protocols prevail after lateral meniscus posterior root tear repair with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe double radial tears of the lateral meniscus (LM), report early clinical treatment outcomes, and determine reoperation and failure rates.
methodsTwenty-one (N = 21) consecutive cases of arthroscopic-treated lateral meniscus double radial tears treated between 2012 and 2018 were reviewed, including 15 males (71.4%) and 6 females (28.6%). Meniscus repairs were all performed at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Patients with associated fractures or prior surgeries were excluded. Concomitant injuries were reported, as were preinjury and postoperative Tegner scores, preoperative and postoperative visual analogue pain scale (VAS) scores, and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores. Reoperation and failure rates were documented.
resultsTwenty-one (N = 21) tears were located in the posterior horn of the meniscus near the root attachment; 15 (71.4%) underwent all-inside repair, 4 (19.0%) underwent transtibial pull-through repair, 1 (4.8%) was partially debrided, and 1 (4.8%) was left untreated. Twenty-one tears (N = 21) were in the body of the meniscus; 7 (33.3%) were repaired, 7 (33.3%) were partially debrided, and 7 (33.3%) were left untreated. Thirteen patients (62%) had associated medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. VAS at rest and with activity improved by 2.1 points (
conclusionsDouble radial tears of the LM are uncommon injuries that occur in the setting of ACL tears, usually combined with MCL injury. The variety of surgical treatment techniques have a low failure rate at short-term follow-up. Patients tend to have good clinical outcomes with improvement in pain and overall function after surgically treating these injuries with simultaneous ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study, case series.
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.