Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026
Surgical repair of radial meniscus tears yields favorable healing rates: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moreira Borim Felipe, Zeng Cindy, Rechsteiner Jan, Lording Timothy
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report on current surgical techniques, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and quantify healing rates following repair of radial meniscus tears.
METHODS: A 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).
RESULTS: Eighteen 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).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite 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.
METHODS: A 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).
RESULTS: Eighteen 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).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite 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.