ReviewAnnals of joint2026
Meniscal allograft transplantation and scaffolds: a narrative review.
Review in Annals of joint, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Meniscal tears are the most common intra-articular knee injury, especially among young active individuals. While meniscal preservation is preferred, complex tears often require partial or total meniscectomy. Removing meniscal tissue alters biomechanics, reduces contact area, increases stress, and ultimately accelerates cartilage degeneration, raising the risk of osteoarthritis. To address symptomatic post-meniscectomy syndrome, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and meniscal scaffolds have emerged as reconstructive options, each addressing distinct patterns of meniscal deficiency. This chapter aims to provide a narrative review of current literature on MAT and meniscal scaffolds, including advances in implant technologies and clinical outcomes. Methods: A narrative review of the current literature on MAT and scaffolds was conducted, encompassing key studies on management, indications, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), return to sports (RTS), survival rates, failure rates, and complications. Key Content and Findings: Meniscal substitution with allografts or scaffolds improves pain and function in patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency, with meniscal scaffolds indicated following partial meniscectomy in the presence of an intact peripheral rim, and MAT reserved for patients with subtotal or total meniscal deficiency. Clinical outcomes and return-to-sport rates for allografts and scaffolds have shown significant improvement, with no clear advantage of one surgical technique over the other. These procedures are often performed in conjunction with other procedures, such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), high tibial osteotomy (HTO), and cartilage restoration, which generally yield good outcomes. Conclusions: Symptomatic post-meniscectomy syndrome remains a challenging clinical entity. Meniscal scaffolds and MAT represent complementary, non-competing reconstructive strategies, with selection dependent on the extent of meniscal deficiency, peripheral rim integrity, and patient-specific factors. The preferred method for allograft/scaffold processing and surgical technique remains a topic of debate. Ultimately, the decision often depends on the surgeon's preference and graft availability.
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.