ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Good mid-term outcomes and over 80% survivorship rate after all-inside repair of bucket-handle and full-thickness radial tears.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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.
- Failure rates increase over time and are higher following medial arthroscopic bucket-handle meniscal repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
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
Purpose: To evaluate failure rates, survivorship, patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs), and prognostic factors following all-inside arthroscopic repair of bucket-handle tears (BHT) and full-thickness radial meniscal tears (RT). Methods: A retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing all-inside repair of BHT or RT by a single surgeon (2019-2025) with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Inclusion required primary repair using all-inside devices. Demographic data, tear morphology, chronicity, and concomitant procedures were recorded. Failure was defined as surgical re-intervention or magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed re-tear. PROMs included subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner Activity Scale, Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores. Return to sport (RTS) rates and the achievement of IKDC-PASS threshold were assessed. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses for each lesion type were performed at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years; subgroup comparisons (location, ACL reconstruction, aetiology) were performed using the log-rank test. Results: Fifty-five repairs (34 BHTs, 21 RTs; 72.7% males; mean age 27.0 ± 11.7 years) were analysed. BHTs were medial in 24 cases and lateral in 10; all RTs were lateral. Overall, 52.7% were chronic, 54.6% treated with concomitant ACL reconstruction, and 83.7% were traumatic. Five repairs failed (mean 22.3 ± 11.9 months), yielding cumulative failure rates of 0.0% at 1 year, 6.0% at 2 years, 8.7% at 3 years and 17.8% at 4 years. Failures were more frequent in medial BHTs (35.5%), degenerative tears ( Conclusions: Meniscal repair of BHTs and RTs achieved 98% patient satisfaction and high return-to-sport rates with a 17% mid-term failure. Medial BHTs and degenerative lesions demonstrated a higher risk of failure, whereas repairs performed concomitantly with ACL reconstruction showed lower failure rates. These findings support early repair and highlight the importance of tear pattern, aetiology, lesion chronicity and concomitant procedures in predicting outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
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.