ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes Following Meniscus Repair in Patients 40 Years and Older.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Fibrin Clot During Meniscus Repair in Young Patients Reduces Clinical Symptom Rates at 12-Month Follow-Up: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Trial
- Clinical outcomes of meniscal repair using bone marrow aspirate-derived fibrin clot: A comparison of tears with and without meniscal cysts.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Isolated meniscal repair, medial meniscus repair and older age increase failure risk after all-inside meniscal repair: A cohort study of 2264 patients.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Rethinking meniscal repair in patients over 40: Extending the boundaries of joint preservation.World journal of methodology · 2026Review
- Functional Recovery after Arthroscopic Management of Meniscal Tears.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Outside-In Meniscal Repair: Contemporary Indications and Surgical Technique.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative Outcomes of Arthroscopic Versus Open Meniscus Repair: An Observational Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Personalized Surgical Decision-Making in Meniscal Tears: Short-Term Outcomes of Repair vs. Partial Meniscectomy in Mongolian Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Redefining Failure: Criteria for Unsuccessful Outcomes in Meniscus Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- Long-Term Results for Meniscus Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- MRI-Based Prediction of Meniscal Tear Repairability Demonstrates Limited Accuracy and Reliability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Patterns of Meniscal Injuries in Adults Aged 35 and Older: A Retrospective Analysis of Surgical Cases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Low Rates of 30-Day Postoperative Complications After Meniscal Allograft Transplantation: A Retrospective Study Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.