SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Efficacy of repair techniques for meniscal root tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMeniscal root tears significantly impair knee biomechanics and can lead to early osteoarthritis if left untreated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the efficacy of different treatment techniques in patients with meniscal root tears.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using specific MeSH terms and related keywords. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and analyzed using a random-effects model. Outcomes assessed included Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and medial meniscus extrusion (MME).
resultsThirty-three studies were included. Both pull-out and all-inside repairs demonstrated significant improvements in functional outcomes. For Lysholm scores, pull-out repair showed a mean difference (MD) of 29.9 (95% CI 26.7-33.0; I² = 97%), and all-inside repair showed an MD of 39.7 (95% CI 31.6-47.8; I² = 98%). Improvements were smaller following partial meniscectomy (MD 23.5, 95% CI 15.6-31.4; I² = 98%) and conservative treatment (MD 16.9, 95% CI 1.8-32.0; I² = 74%). IKDC outcomes mirrored these findings, with pull-out repair yielding an MD of 28.8 (95% CI 26.5-31.2; I² = 86%) and all-inside repair an MD of 33.9 (95% CI 17.4-50.4; I² = 98%). Partial meniscectomy (MD 16.7, 95% CI - 1.2-45.6; I² = 98%) and conservative care (MD 16.2, 95% CI - 3.6-36.0; I² = 90%) showed non-significant or modest gains. None of the interventions, including pull-out repair (MD - 0.1 mm, 95% CI - 0.5-0.4; I² = 93%) or all-inside repair (MD 0.0 mm, 95% CI - 0.4-0.4; I² = 0%), resulted in significant improvements in medial meniscal extrusion.
conclusionsAnatomical repair techniques, particularly pull-out and all-inside methods, appear to provide better functional outcomes for meniscal root tears than partial meniscectomy or conservative care. However, given the low certainty of evidence, further high-quality studies are needed to clarify structural outcomes and optimize long-term joint preservation strategies.
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.