Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37284879›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

Greater rate of return to play and re-injury following all-inside meniscal repair compared to the inside-out technique: a systematic review.

Filippo Migliorini, Giovanni Asparago, Francesco Oliva, Andreas Bell, Frank Hildebrand, Nicola Maffulli

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. migliorini.md@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7220-1221
Giovanni AsparagoDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Francesco OlivaDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Andreas BellDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Eifelklinik St. Brigida, Simmerath, Germany.
Frank HildebrandDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
University of Salerno · ITOspedale di Bolzano · ITRWTH Aachen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInside-out and all-inside arthroscopic meniscal repairs are widely performed. However, it remains unclear which method promotes greater clinical outcomes. This study compared inside-out versus all-inside arthroscopic meniscal repair in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), failures, return to play, and symptoms.

methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Two authors independently performed the literature search by accessing the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus in February 2023. All clinical studies which investigated the outcomes of all-inside and/or inside-out meniscal repair were considered.

resultsData from 39 studies (1848 patients) were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 36.8 (9 to 120) months. The mean age of the patients was 25.8 ± 7.9 years. 28% (521 of 1848 patients) were women. No difference was found in PROMs: Tegner Activity Scale (P = 0.4), Lysholm score (P = 0.2), and International Knee Document Committee score (P = 0.4) among patients undergoing meniscal repair with all inside or inside-out techniques. All-inside repairs showed a greater rate of re-injury (P = 0.009) but also a greater rate of return to play at the pre-injury level (P = 0.0001). No difference was found in failures (P = 0.7), chronic pain (P = 0.05), reoperation (P = 0.1) between the two techniques. No difference was found in the rate of return to play (P = 0.5) and to daily activities (P = 0.1) between the two techniques.

conclusionArthroscopic all-inside meniscal repair may be of special interest in patients with a particular interest in a fast return to sport, while, for less demanding patients, the inside-out suture technique may be recommended. High-quality comparative trials are required to validate these results in a clinical setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review.

Indexed as

Menisci, TibialReinjuriesAdolescentAdultArthroscopyFemaleHumansKnee JointLysholm Knee ScoreMaleRetrospective StudiesReturn to SportYoung AdultAll-insideInside-outMeniscal repairRe-injuryReturn to sport

Identifiers

PMID37284879
PMCPMC10491517
OpenAlexW4379600158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.