SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Surgical repair of radial meniscus tears yields favorable healing rates: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
purposeTo report on current surgical techniques, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and quantify healing rates following repair of radial meniscus tears.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases up to November 15, 2025. Studies included reported ≥ 6-month mean follow-up on radial meniscus tear repair, were published in English (or translated) after January 1, 1990. Technical reports and biomechanical or cadaveric research were excluded. Search terms included MeSH and keywords for "meniscal/meniscus AND radial/vertical tears" and repair concepts. Quality was assessed using both the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) and the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).
resultsEighteen studies (316 patients, 321 radial repairs) met criteria. Mean follow-up was 36.1 ± 6.4 months (range 6.2-71). Lateral tears predominated (n = 279, 87%). Inside-out and all-inside techniques were most common. Postoperative PROMs demonstrated statistically significant improvement from pre- to postoperative assessments (p < 0.01 for Lysholm, IKDC, Tegner scores), generally indicating good to excellent functional outcomes and activity levels. Satisfactory healing (complete or partial) was reported in 82.5% of assessed tears, with a low complication rate (3.7%). Quality assessment indicated predominantly medium risk of bias according to MINORS criteria, and moderate quality based on MCMS scores (mean 55 ± 8.7).
conclusionsDespite variations in repair techniques, postoperative subjective outcomes indicated significant patient improvement following radial tear repair, with high reported healing rates. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As concern for post-meniscectomy osteoarthritis grows, meniscal preservation via radial tear repair offers a promising approach to improve clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
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.