ReviewEFORT open reviews2026
Current concepts in meniscal suturing techniques: indications, advantages, and limitations.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 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
The meniscus is critical for load distribution and joint stability; tears disrupt biomechanics and accelerate cartilage degeneration, prompting a shift from meniscectomy toward preservation and repair. We review three core techniques - inside-out, outside-in, and all-inside - with stepwise descriptions, indications, advantages/limitations, devices, and complication profiles. Inside-out offers precise, strong fixation but requires an accessory incision and neurovascular precautions; outside-in is reproducible and cost-efficient for anterior horn tears; and all-inside reduces soft-tissue dissection and operative time, improving access to posterior/body regions. No single meniscal repair technique demonstrates clear superiority in healing or failure rates; outcomes depend on tear characteristics and patient factors. Although modern all-suture all-inside devices show favorable biomechanics, their higher cost and unclear cost-effectiveness limit definitive clinical advantage. Technical pearls include optimized portal placement, peripheral bites, protection of neurovascular structures, and avoidance of soft-tissue bridges. Concomitant ACL reconstruction enhances healing - likely via improved stability and marrow-derived biologic augmentation. Region-specific guidance is provided using medial and lateral anatomical zoning, aligning suture patterns (inside-out, outside-in, and all-inside) to tear location to preserve biomechanics and reduce complications.
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.