ArticleMalaysian orthopaedic journal2023
Inferior Healing Rate in Isolated Meniscal Repair than that in Meniscal Repair with Concomitant ACL Reconstruction Evaluated with MRI.
Article in Malaysian orthopaedic journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low Failure Rates and Favorable Outcomes of Meniscal Repair With Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- A Review of Revision Meniscal Repair: Clinical Considerations and Outcomes.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- Fibrin Clot Augmentation During All-Inside Meniscal Repair: Pull-In Technique.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- The incidence of meniscal cyst formation following meniscal repair using the all-inside suture anchor device is comparable to conventional techniques.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Do MRI Results Represent Functional Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Repair of an Isolated Meniscus Tear in Young Patients?-A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Isolated meniscal repair has been suggested as one of the contributing factors in unhealed meniscal repair. The purpose of this study was to compare the healing rate between isolated meniscal repair and meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a standardised assessment method after propensity score matching. Materials and methods: Accuracy of the Crues' grading system for meniscal healing was validated using second-look arthroscopy as the reference standard in 17 patients. Propensity score matching (one-to-one) was performed between 26 patients who underwent isolated meniscal repair and 98 patients who underwent meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR. Patients were matched for sex, age, side and zone of the meniscal repair, and number of sutures. Healing rates at one year which were evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared between the two groups. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the Crues' grading system on multiple plane MRI for meniscal healing were 100% and 83.3%, respectively. Both the isolated meniscal repair group and the meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR group included 21 patients after propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The healing rate was significantly lower in the isolated meniscal repairs group (14.3%) than in the meniscal repair concomitant with ACLR group (47.6%, P=0.04). Conclusion: The healing rate for isolated meniscal repair using a standardised MRI assessment method was inferior to that of meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR after propensity score matching.
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.