ArticleThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2025
COVID-19 Disruption Of Knee Arthroscopies.
Article in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to examine the proportion of patients who returned for their previously scheduled knee arthroscopy procedure following state-mandated cancellation of elective procedures during COVID-19 lockdown. Methods: We reviewed a retrospective cohort of patients who had planned knee arthroscopies, excluding ligament reconstruction and irrigation/ debridement, cancelled for a date between March and June 2020. The cohort was evaluated for scheduling outcome, returned versus did not return for surgery, before March 2022. Cancellation and reschedule dates, reason for not returning for surgery, patient demographics, and planned surgical characteristics were collected. Characteristics between patients who returned versus did not return were compared using statistical tests of independence. Results: The cohort consisted of 66 patients; 53 (80%) rescheduled and 13 (20%) did not return. For those who rescheduled, the average time between cancellation and surgery was 115 days (sd=16 days). There were various reasons for not rescheduling surgery: eight (62%) had symptom alleviation; two (15%) had logistical barriers; three (23%) were lost to follow-up. Obesity status had a trend towards significance with lower proportion of rescheduled procedures for non-obese patients (68%) compared to obese patients (89%, p=0.057). Conclusion: Our study highlights a natural experiment in forced delay of elective knee arthroscopies, which may be a surrogate for conservative management. The proportion of patients who did not return for a scheduled knee arthroscopy surgery (20%) is higher than what has been reported previously (11%) and 62% of these patients found symptom relief. However, 80% of the cohort did return for knee arthroscopy in within two years, suggesting delaying surgery will not alleviate symptoms for the majority of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40606715PMC12212320What 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.