ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
No clinical differences between outside-in and all-inside techniques in medial meniscus repair: emphasizing Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) -based outcomes.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile the all-inside (AI) technique is widely preferred for its simplicity and efficiency, the outside-in (OI) method is less commonly used. Despite both techniques being effective, direct comparisons of their functional outcomes are limited. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of OI and AI repair techniques for zone-3 and zone-4 medial meniscus tears, emphasizing outcomes based on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID).We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in outcomes between the two techniques.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on 93 patients (mean age: 37.6 ± 11.8 years) with isolated zone-3 or zone-4 medial meniscus tears treated between 2020 and 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: OI (n = 63) and AI (n = 30), with all surgeries performed by two experienced orthopedic surgeons. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Tegner-Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale (TLKS) at a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The MCID was calculated using the 0.5 standard deviation method. Statistical analyses included ANCOVA to adjust for age-related differences, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsBoth OI and AI techniques resulted in significant improvements in IKDC, KOOS, and TLKS scores, surpassing MCID thresholds for all measures (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of functional outcomes (p > 0.05). The OI group utilized significantly fewer sutures (median: 1 [1-4] vs. 2 [1-7]; p < 0.001) and had a higher, though not statistically significant, complication rate (11% vs. 0%; p = 0.092). All complications were observed in the OI group, including saphenous nerve palsy and septic arthritis.
conclusionBoth outside-in and all-inside techniques offer comparable clinical improvements in the repair of zone-3 and zone-4 medial meniscus tears, achieving success defined by MCID thresholds. The outside-in group used fewer sutures and exhibited a slightly higher complication rate, although this difference was not statistically significant. These findings support similar clinical outcomes for both techniques and may help guide surgical decision-making based on individual cases and surgeon experience.
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.