Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42302333

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

Horacio Rivarola·Camilo Helito·Cristian Collazo·Marcos Palanconi·Marcos Meninato·Francisco Endara Urresta·Carlos Peñaherrera-Carrillo·Alejandro Barros Castro
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

HumansTibial Meniscus InjuriesAlgorithmsArthroscopyBiological ProductsDecision Support TechniquesPrecision MedicineBiologic augmentationDecision algorithmMeniscal Preservation Score (MPS)Meniscal repairMeniscus tearPersonalized orthopaedicsJournal ArticleSystematic Review

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Horacio Rivarola, Camilo Helito, Cristian Collazo, Marcos Palanconi, Marcos Meninato, Francisco Endara Urresta, Carlos Peñaherrera-Carrillo, Alejandro Barros Castro. 2026-06-16. Meniscal preservation in the age of biologics: toward a quantitative decision algorithm for personalized repair.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2026.104515

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

Discover connections

Journal Article; Systematic Review resourceAlgorithms subjectArthroscopy subjectBiological Products subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectSystematic reviews study

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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

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

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.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Predicting ACL injury risk in athletes: A systematic review of machine learning-based models.

BACKGROUND: Early ACL injury risk identification in athletes is essential. This systematic review examines machine learning (ML) models for predicting ACL injuries, evaluating their methodological quality, performance, and reliability. METHOD: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases, supplemented by Google Scholar for grey literature, covering articles published between January 1, 2015, and August 30, 2025. Eligible studies were appraised using the Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for methodological quality and risk of bias, and the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines for quality of evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies were included. PROBAST showed eight studies had moderate risk of bias and two low risk. TRIPOD found only two studies met quality criteria. ML models included logistic regression (n = 5), support vector machines (n = 4), k-nearest neighbor (n = 3), decision trees (n = 3), random forests (n = 5), neural networks (n = 2), linear discriminant analysis (n = 1), and pre-trained CNNs (n = 1). AUC ranged from 0.63 to 0.98. Accuracy (reported in six studies) ranged from 26% to 95%; however, these values should be interpreted with caution due to the absence of confidence intervals, lack of class imbalance handling, and limited external validation across studies. Tree-based ensemble methods such as random forest achieved competitive accuracy (74-86%), while SVM, a non-ensemble classifier, reported accuracy ranging from 71% to 95%; however, the highest values were obtained in studies with notably small sample sizes (n = 12 to n = 39), raising concerns about overfitting and generalizability. CONCLUSION: Current ML algorithms show promise for identifying athletes at high ACL injury risk and detecting relevant risk factors. Although study quality was generally satisfactory, future research should prioritize external validation and model interpretability to support clinical translation.

Humans↗