ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2026
Risk Factors for Failure of Meniscal Repair.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewMeniscal preservation is a cornerstone of modern knee surgery given the meniscus's essential role in load transmission, joint stability, and cartilage protection. As indications for meniscal repair have expanded, understanding the factors associated with repair failure has become increasingly important. The purpose of this review is to synthesize contemporary evidence regarding risk factors for failure of meniscal repair, clarify how failure is defined and evaluated, and outline current strategies for management of failed repairs to guide clinical decision-making. RECENT
findingsRecent literature supports meniscal repair as a joint-preserving procedure with superior long-term outcomes compared with meniscectomy, though failure and reoperation remain clinically relevant concerns. Failure risk is influenced by a combination of patient-related factors, including smoking status, limb alignment, and medical comorbidities; tear characteristics such as vascular zone, tear pattern, chronicity, and meniscal laterality; and surgical variables including isolated repair versus concomitant ligament reconstruction, repair technique, and postoperative rehabilitation. Advances in repair devices, imaging, and biologic augmentation have improved healing potential, and growing evidence supports revision meniscal repair in select patients with favorable tissue quality and tear morphology. Meniscal repair failure is multifactorial and cannot be attributed to surgical technique alone. Successful outcomes depend on appropriate patient selection, careful assessment of tear biomechanics, selection of an optimal repair strategy, and individualized rehabilitation. Revision meniscal repair remains a viable option for preserving meniscal function in appropriately selected patients. Future research should prioritize standardized definitions of failure, comparative studies of repair techniques, and biologic strategies to further improve healing and long-term joint preservation.
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.