ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2026
All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Meniscal Repair: A Comparative Study of Healing Rates And Functional Outcomes.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 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
Introduction: Meniscal injuries rank as one of the most frequent knee injuries, which can be repaired through preservation as the best method to maintain knee joint health and prevent long-term joint deterioration. The all-inside and inside-out meniscal repair techniques represent the most commonly used surgical methods for meniscal tissue restoration. The existing research shows ongoing disagreement about which method of treatment produces better healing results and functional improvements, and surgical time efficiency and rate of medical complications. Materials and Methods: This prospective comparative study included 50 patients with meniscal tears who underwent arthroscopic repair. Patients were divided into two groups: All-inside repair (n = 25) and inside-out repair (n = 25). Demographic data, tear characteristics, operative time, complications, healing rates, and functional outcomes were assessed. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Lysholm knee score and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. Patients were followed up for 6 months postoperatively. Results: Majority of the patients were aged 26-35 years (38%) with a male predominance (70%). Operative time was significantly lower in the all-inside group (42 ± 6 min) compared to the inside-out group (58 ± 8 min). Meniscal healing was observed in 84% of patients in the all-inside group and 92% in the inside-out group. Functional outcomes improved significantly in both groups, with Lysholm scores increasing to 90 ± 5 (all-inside) and 92 ± 4 (inside-out), and IKDC scores to 88 ± 6 and 90 ± 5, respectively. Complications were fewer in the all-inside group, with no neurovascular injuries reported, whereas the inside-out group had a higher incidence of such complications. Return to pre-injury activity was achieved in 80% of patients overall. Conclusion: Both all-inside and inside-out meniscal repair techniques demonstrated excellent healing and functional outcomes. The all-inside technique provided shorter operative time and fewer complications, whereas the inside-out technique showed slightly higher healing rates.
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.