ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Not all meniscal repair failures are equal: A comparison between early and late failure risk factors.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Meniscal repair failure is a significant clinical concern, but existing literature treats it as a single outcome without differentiating timing. Early and late failures may represent mechanistically distinct phenomena; identifying their differential predictors could improve risk stratification and postoperative monitoring. Methods: A retrospective cohort study used a national database to identify patients undergoing arthroscopic meniscal repair, including both isolated repairs and repairs performed with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, classified into early failure (reoperation <365 days, approximating the conventional period of meniscal healing), late failure (≥365 days) or no failure. Cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression identified independent predictors of each failure type separately. Results: Of 38,003 patients, 3399 (8.9%) experienced failure (1996 early; 1403 late). A bimodal hazard pattern supported phenotypic distinction between groups. Early failure was independently predicted by female sex (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15), bucket-handle tear (HR 1.30), traumatic mechanism (HR 1.14), concomitant microfracture (HR 1.54), hamstring autograft (HR 1.21) and single-anchor repair (HR 1.28); three or more anchors were protective (HR 0.83). Late failure was uniquely predicted by knee osteoarthritis (HR 1.33), whereas increasing age was independently protective (HR 0.98/year) as well as three or more anchors (HR 0.86). Among isolated meniscal repairs, partial meniscectomy was the most common reoperation in both groups, but more frequent in late failures (60.1% vs. 53.7%). Re-repair was more common after early failure (22.5% vs. 16.1%), while TKA was more prevalent after late failure (9.8% vs. 5.4%). All reported associations and between-group differences were statistically significant ( Conclusion: Early and late meniscal repair failures are distinct clinical phenotypes with differing risk factors and reoperation patterns. Early failure appears driven by mechanical and technical factors; late failure is more strongly associated with degenerative joint disease and host biology. These findings may inform individualised monitoring and risk stratification strategies. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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.