ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Failure rates increase over time and are higher following medial arthroscopic bucket-handle meniscal repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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: Bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs) constitute a technically demanding form of meniscal injury. However, the incidence of repair failure and the factors influencing outcomes remain incompletely characterised. This study aimed to estimate the pooled failure rate after bucket-handle meniscal repair (BHMR) and to identify variables associated with unsuccessful healing. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) was performed to identify studies published from January 2005 through 2026 evaluating arthroscopic BHMR. Eligible designs included randomised trials, cohort studies and case series with at least 15 patients. Random-effects or fixed models were used to calculate pooled failure proportions and odds ratios. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted to explore potential predictors of failure. Results: The pooled BHMR failure rate was 21.5% (95% CI: 16.3%-27.8%; Conclusion: BHMRs carry a substantial 21.5% failure rate that increases over time, with medial tears at significantly higher risk than lateral tears. Concomitant ACL reconstruction and tear vascularity did not significantly impact failure odds. High-quality prospective studies are needed to optimise patient selection and long-term counselling. Level of Evidence: Level II.
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.