ReviewCureus2024
Efficacy and Long-Term Outcomes of Arthroscopic Meniscus Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arthroscopic All-Inside Meniscal Tying for Anterior Horn Bucket-Handle Meniscal Injuries.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Article
- Increased reoperation rates after meniscus repair compared to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: Data from a comprehensive clinical cohort with up to 10 years follow-up.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Arthroscopic Versus Open Meniscus Repair: An Observational Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and long-term outcomes of arthroscopic meniscus repair, focusing on success, failure, and reoperation rates. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, including studies that involved patients undergoing arthroscopic meniscus repair with a minimum follow-up of two years. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Meta-analyses were conducted using RStudio 4.3.1 software (RStudio Inc., Boston, MA), with pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated for dichotomous outcomes using a random effects model. The meta-analysis included 10 studies totaling 1,004 patients. The pooled success rate for arthroscopic meniscus repair was 83% (95% CI: 77%-89%), while the pooled failure rate was 20% (95% CI: 15%-25%), and the pooled reoperation rate was 21% (95% CI: 17%-25%). Significant heterogeneity was observed across studies (I² > 50%). Subgroup analyses based on suture techniques and concurrent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction did not reveal significant outcome differences. Arthroscopic meniscus repair demonstrates high success rates and acceptable failure and reoperation rates, supporting its continued use in clinical practice. However, the variability in study quality and significant heterogeneity highlight the need for more rigorous, high-quality studies to refine techniques and better explore long-term outcomes.
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.