ArticleRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
Defining the danger zone for peroneal nerve safety in all-inside lateral meniscus repair: an MRI-based study.
Article in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe peroneal (fibular) nerve (PN) traverses the posterolateral aspect of the knee joint, placing it at risk during lateral meniscus (LM) repair, given its proximity to the popliteus tendon (PoT).
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the risk of PN injury and define a safe anchor penetration angle during all-inside LM repair. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of 327 individuals aged 18-60 years. The patellar tendon (PaT) and PoT widths were measured. The PN location relative to the PoT was determined. Distances from the PN to predefined medial and lateral reference lines across the PoT were calculated. The angular relationship between these lines and the transverse axis of the PaT was also analyzed for both anteromedial (AM) and anterolateral (AL) arthroscopic portals.
resultsThe PN-to-PoT distance was found to be comparable for both portals. However, the PN was significantly farther from the lateral reference line in the AM portal and from the medial reference line in the AL portal. The safe upper limit for anchor insertion was approximately 65° from the AM portal and 88° from the AL portal.
conclusionAppropriate portal selection and anchor angle during all-inside LM repair can significantly reduce the risk of PN injury. The AL portal offers a broader safe insertion range and may therefore improve nerve protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42084738What 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.