ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Meniscus Repair: Gaps in the Long-Term Current Evidence.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meniscal repair has become the preferred treatment for many meniscal tears. As a result, multiple arthroscopic techniques have evolved, including the all-inside (AI) and inside-out (IO) approaches, which have been widely studied in the current literature. The present article highlights key limitations in studies reporting long-term outcomes (≥5 years), notably the heterogeneity of failure definitions and the lack of subgroup stratification by clinically relevant factors such as age, concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and meniscal side (medial vs. lateral). To date, no clear superiority of the AI over the IO approach has been established. Redefining failure through multidimensional approaches that integrate structural, clinical, and patient-reported assessments will be crucial to ensure a consistent and patient-centered evaluation of repair success. Further research with robust subgroup analyses is needed to determine whether one technique confers superior long-term results in specific patient populations.
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.