ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2025
A Review of Revision Meniscal Repair: Clinical Considerations and Outcomes.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Risk Factors for Failure of Meniscal Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
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
purposeMeniscus repair is preferred over meniscectomy when possible due to its ability to preserve meniscal tissue and reduce long-term joint degeneration. However, meniscus repair has a risk of failure, resulting in an increasing number of patients presenting with symptoms following a failed repair. Revision meniscus repair remains an option for symptomatic patients, yet guidance on indications, surgical techniques, and expected outcomes is limited. The purpose of this review is to summarize indications, surgical approaches, and outcomes associated with revision meniscus repair. RECENT
findingsPatient-specific factors such as age, activity level, and modifiable risk factors influence revision repair success. Younger, highly active individuals may be at higher risk of retear due to increased mechanical stress. Tissue quality and vascularity are critical, as degenerative changes and poor perfusion increase failure rates. The gold-standard inside-out technique is often favored for revision repairs due to its superior biomechanical stability. However, all-inside and outside-in techniques remain viable options in specific cases. Biological augmentation, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and marrow venting, may enhance healing potential but requires further investigation. Revision meniscus repair demonstrates comparable failure rates and functional outcomes to primary repair, with reported failure rates ranging from 21-33% at mid-term follow-up. Many patients successfully return to high levels of activity following revision repair. Although younger age and high activity levels may predispose to failure, revision meniscus repair remains a viable option for preserving meniscal integrity and optimizing long-term joint health.
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.