Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39131093›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes Following Meniscus Repair in Patients 40 Years and Older.

Matthew J Sedgwick, Christopher Saunders, Alan M J Getgood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Outside-In Meniscal Repair: Contemporary Indications and Surgical Technique.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Redefining Failure: Criteria for Unsuccessful Outcomes in Meniscus Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025
    Review
  10. Long-Term Results for Meniscus Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

3 authors.

Matthew J SedgwickSmith+Nephew, Hull, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9084-0190
Christopher SaundersSmith+Nephew, Hull, UK.
Alan M J GetgoodKennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Meniscal repair has been associated with long-term benefit in patients compared with meniscectomy. As a generalization, meniscal repair in older patients is less likely to be successful, leading to reduced adoption of meniscal repair compared with younger patients. Purpose: To establish the clinical performance of meniscal repair in "older" patients (age, ≥40 years) and compare it with performance in "younger" patients (age, <40 years). Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in September 2021 using Embase and PubMed to identify published English-language studies that reported on a meniscal repair in >5 patients aged ≥40 years. Outcomes of interest were success/failure rate (as defined by the study), revision meniscal procedure rate, and patient-reported outcomes. Meta-analyses were used to synthesize outcomes across all studies in older patients. Meta-analyses were also used to compare outcomes between older and younger patients across studies, providing data on both age groups. Results: Fourteen studies were identified. Meniscal repair in older patients was determined to have a failure rate of 12% (95% CI, 7.3% to 19.4%) and a revision meniscal procedure rate of 9.8% (95% CI, 6.2% to 15.0%). The postoperative Lysholm score was 86.7 (95% CI, 81.7 to 91.7). No statistically significant differences were observed between older and younger patients in failure rate (relative risk [RR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.44 to 1.21]; Conclusion: Meniscal repair in selected patients aged ≥40 years resulted in good success rates and patient-reported outcome measures, which appear similar to those reported for patients aged <40 years. Therefore, meniscal repairs can be performed in at least a specific portion of "older" patients, and age per se should not be the sole determining factor in whether to perform a meniscal repair.

Indexed as

agekneemeniscussurgery

Identifiers

PMID39131093
PMCPMC11311169

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.