ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Clinical and radiologic outcomes in patients with meniscal root tears.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeniscal root tears can lead to early knee osteoarthritis and pain. This study aimed (1) to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between patients who underwent arthroscopic meniscal root repair after meniscal root tears and those who received non-surgical treatment, and (2) to identify whether baseline MRI findings could be potential predictors for future treatment strategies.
methodsPatients with meniscal root tears were identified from our picture archiving and communication system from 2016 to 2020. Two radiologists reviewed radiographs and MRI studies using Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grading and a modified Whole Organ MRI Scoring (WORMS) at baseline and follow-up. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) of follow-up radiographs and MRI studies were 134 (44-443) days and 502 (260-1176) days, respectively. MR images were assessed for root tear-related findings. Pain scores using visual analogue scale (VAS) and management strategies (non-surgical vs. arthroscopic root repair) were also collected. Chi-squared tests and independent t-tests were used to assess differences regarding clinical and imaging variables between treatment groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between baseline MRI findings and each future treatment.
resultsNinety patients were included. VAS pain scores were significantly (p < 0.01) lower after arthroscopic repair compared to conservative treatment (1.27±0.38vs.4±0.52) at the last follow-up visit with median (IQR) of 325 (180-1391) days. Increased meniscal extrusion (mm) was associated with higher odds of receiving non-surgical treatment (OR = 1.65, 95%CI 1.02-2.69, p = 0.04). The odds of having arthroscopic repair increased by 19% for every 1 mm increase in the distance of the tear from the root attachment (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.05-1.36, p < 0.01). The odds of undergoing arthroscopic repair were reduced by 49% for every 1 mm increase in the extent of meniscal extrusion (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.29-0.91, p = 0.02) as observed in the baseline MRI.
conclusionsPatients who underwent arthroscopic repair had lower pain scores than patients with conservative treatment in the follow-up. Distance of the torn meniscus to the root attachment and the extent of meniscal extrusion were significant predictors for arthroscopic repair in the next three weeks (time from the baseline MRI to the surgery date).
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.