ArticleKnee surgery & related research2026
Posterior approach achieves more accurate replication of the posterior horn than anterior approach in transtibial pull-out repair of medial meniscus posterior root tear.
Article in Knee surgery & related research, 2026. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Prediction of Prognosis After Nonsurgical Treatment for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tear.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to compare the anterior and posterior approach for transtibial pull-out repair of medial meniscal posterior root tear (MMPRT) in terms of tibial tunnel positioning of the posterior horn, healing status, medial meniscal extrusion (MME), medial joint space (MJS) narrowing, and clinical outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent arthroscopic transtibial pull-out repair for MMPRT between May 2019 and June 2023. Tibial tunnel positioning was assessed postoperatively using computed tomography. The healing status was evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the 1-year follow-up visit. Pre- and postoperative MME and MJS widths were measured using MRI and weight-bearing radiography, respectively. Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up using the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Tegner activity scale.
resultsA total of 77 patients were initially evaluated for eligibility, of whom 23 were excluded. A total of 54 patients were analyzed (26 anterior approach (AA), 28 posterior approach (PA)). The PA group demonstrated significantly more accurate tibial tunnel positioning compared with the AA group (mean absolute distance: 2.8 ± 2.0 mm versus 4.9 ± 3.2 mm, p = 0.001). MRI at follow-up demonstrated that complete or partial healing was achieved in 88.9% of cases, with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.413). Overall, MME increased from 3.0 ± 0.9 mm to 4.0 ± 1.6 mm (p = 0.022) and MJS decreased from 3.5 ± 1.2 mm to 3.1 ± 1.3 mm (p = 0.001), without intergroup differences. All clinical scores improved significantly from baseline, but no significant differences were observed between approaches at final follow-up.
conclusionThe PA group achieved more accurate replication of the posterior horn insertion than the AA group; however, no definitive advantages were observed in short-term clinical or radiographic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative cohort study.
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.