ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Clinical Efficacy of Meniscal Transplantation After Meniscectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although numerous studies have reported the clinical outcomes of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT), no systematic review has clearly clarified its overall efficacy or the factors influencing clinical results. Purpose: To systematically evaluate clinical outcomes and graft survival across different follow-up periods following MAT and analyze potential factors that may influence postoperative outcomes. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was conducted via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies on MAT published between 2015 and 2025. Only studies involving meniscal transplantation for meniscal defects were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed via the methodological index for non-randomized studies scale. The primary outcomes were the Lysholm score, visual analog scale score, Tegner activity score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and International Knee Documentation Committee score. Data on graft survival rates and return-to-sport rates were also extracted. Additionally, exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of follow-up duration, graft laterality (medial vs lateral), rehabilitation protocol, and fixation technique, with the Lysholm score used as the primary outcome measure for subgroup comparisons. Results: A total of 24 studies comprising 3251 patients were included. Significant improvements were observed across all reported clinical outcome scores following MAT ( Conclusion: MAT is an effective treatment for patients with symptoms following meniscectomy. It results in significant improvements in knee function, pain relief, and quality of life. Lack of standardized patient selection, surgical technique, and rehabilitation limit the ability to identify factors that may influence outcomes. While it presents a promising alternative to meniscectomy, its long-term efficacy and broader applicability require further investigation. Registration: CDR420251001961 (PROSPERO database).
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.