Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42228997

All-inside repair is an effective treatment for medial meniscus posterior root tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomechanical and clinical evidence.

T Cerasoli·V G Rinaldi·A Fogacci·M P Neri·G M Marcheggiani Muccioli·S Zaffagnini·A Grassi
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) reproduce the biomechanics of subtotal meniscectomy. Repair is favored, but the role of all-inside repair (AR) remains unclear relative to transtibial pull-out (TP). This study aimed to review the biomechanical and clinical evidence on AR for MMPRTs. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and biomechanical performance. When available, random-effects meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. AR restored contact mechanics and showed load to failure comparable to TP, with lower stiffness. Meta-analysis showed lower conversion to total knee arthroplasty with AR versus non-repair (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.58), and no significant PROM differences between AR and TP. CONCLUSIONS: AR showed favorable biomechanical properties and improved outcomes versus non-repair. Compared with TP, no significant clinical differences were observed. AR may represent a reasonable option in selected scenarios.

Explore related subjects

HumansTibial Meniscus InjuriesBiomechanical PhenomenaMenisci, TibialArthroscopyMeniscectomyAll-insideAll-inside repairMMPRTMedial meniscal root tearRoot tearJournal ArticleSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisReview

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

T Cerasoli, V G Rinaldi, A Fogacci, M P Neri, G M Marcheggiani Muccioli, S Zaffagnini, A Grassi. 2026-06-02. All-inside repair is an effective treatment for medial meniscus posterior root tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomechanical and clinical evidence.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2026.104501

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Arthroscopy subjectBiomechanical Phenomena subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectJournal Article; Systematic Review; Meta-Analysis; Review resourceMeta-Analysis subjectSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Meniscal preservation in the age of biologics: toward a quantitative decision algorithm for personalized repair.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in arthroscopic repair and biologic augmentation, surgical indication for meniscal tears remains heterogeneous. No standardized framework currently integrates biomechanical, clinical, and biological determinants to guide repair versus resection. PURPOSE: To develop a quantitative decision model-the Meniscal Preservation Score (MPS)-that unifies biomechanical and biological evidence to stratify reparability potential and standardize treatment selection in meniscal surgery. METHODS: A systematic evidence synthesis conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 reporting standards of studies published from 2000 to 2025 in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified key determinants of meniscal healing. Five consistent predictors-patient age, vascularity, tear morphology, associated pathology, and activity profile-were weighted through a two-round modified Delphi consensus among ten experienced knee surgeons. The resulting 0-9-point MPS was incorporated into a stepwise decision tree linking lesion morphology, biological context, and surgical strategy. Conceptual validation used 50 simulated cases and a retrospective cohort of 45 patients to test agreement between algorithm recommendations and expert surgical decisions. RESULTS: The MPS achieved 86% concordance with expert judgment in simulation and 84% agreement in clinical validation. In this retrospective exploratory cohort, cases in which surgical management was concordant with MPS recommendations demonstrated higher mean IKDC scores at 24 months and lower observed reoperation rates. These findings should be interpreted as associative rather than causal, as treatment allocation was not controlled and discordant cases may have represented inherently more complex pathology. CONCLUSION: The MPS represents an evidence-informed decision-support framework designed to systematize reparability assessment. While exploratory analyses suggest structural coherence with expert reasoning, prospective implementation and external validation are required before clinical adoption as a predictive tool. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: conceptual model with exploratory validation.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Analysis of deep learning techniques in computer-aided diagnosis for meniscus injuries: a systematic literature review.

Meniscus informatics is a growing subject of study in the healthcare industry. One of the major hindrances to the healthcare system's transformation is obtaining knowledge and meaningful information from complicated, high-dimensional and diverse sources. Modern biomedical research, for instance, has seen an increase in the use of complex, dissimilar, poorly documented, and generally unstructured electronic health records, imaging, sensor data and text, even after many current techniques have been used to extract more robust and useful elements from the data for analysis. New efficient standards for building end-to-end learning models from complex data are therefore needed. Therefore, the current study aims to examine the most recent research on the use of deep learning techniques for diagnosing meniscus tears and recommend creating comprehensive and meaningful interpretable structures that might benefit the healthcare industry. We also draw attention to shortcomings and the need for better technique development, and we provide new perspectives about this exciting new development in the field.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

The effect of hip abductor or external rotator strength on dynamic knee valgus in healthy subjects-a systematic review with partial meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Weak hip abductors and external rotators (ER) have long been suggested to cause increased dynamic knee valgus. Patients are often prescribed strengthening of these muscles with the expectation that it will reduce their risk of pain and injury. The validity of this claim remains unclear. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review and partial meta-analysis assessing the association between hip strength and knee valgus in healthy subjects. An online search was conducted in May 2026. Databases included Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Google Scholar. INCLUSION CRITERIA: English language, asymptomatic subjects, dynamometric hip strength, single or multi-camera kinematic analysis, and statistical tests of difference or correlations between hip abductor or ER strength and dynamic valgus. Data were extracted concerning study design, subject characteristics, relevant outcome measures and statistics. RESULTS: 22 papers qualified for inclusion. Hip abductor correlations: 12 papers found no significant correlation, 2 supported the hypothesis and 2 found evidence contrary. Hip ER correlations: 8 papers found no significant correlation, 2 supported the hypothesis and 2 were contrary. Group differences for hip abduction strength: 3 papers found no difference, 2 found significant differences in support of the hypothesis, 1 found significant difference to contrary. Group differences for ER strength: 1 paper found no significant difference. None of the partial meta-analyses achieved statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Weakness in hip abductors or external rotators may not result in increased dynamic knee valgus in healthy subjects. While continued research may further illuminate our understanding, we discuss alternative explanations.

Humans↗