Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair Using the BioStinger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Biodegradable devices are available for all-inside meniscal repairs. One device, the BioStinger (Linvatec, Largo, FL), is made of molded poly-L-lactic acid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of and any adverse events associated with meniscus repair using this device. TYPE OF STUDY: Nonrandomized prospective cohort study. METHODS: A prospective, consecutive, 3-center meniscal repair series using BioStingers (group 1), vertical inside-out sutures (group 2), or hybrid repairs combining BioStingers and sutures (group 3) was studied. Lysholm, Tegner, Cincinnati, and IKDC activity scores were obtained and clinical outcomes and adverse events documented. RESULTS: There were 85 patients who underwent 89 meniscus repairs with an average 26.5 months of follow-up. There were 47 BioStinger repairs (group 1), 29 suture repairs (group 2), and 13 hybrid repairs (group 3). The tear length was statistically greater for the hybrid repair group (P < .5). There were 73 repairs associated with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions and 12 repeat arthroscopies were performed. Meniscal healing failed in 6 knees (4 in group 1, 0 in group 2, and 2 in group 3). The meniscal healing failed in 7% of those associated with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Mean Tegner scores improved from 2.8 to 6.3, the final IKDC activity score was 3.2 out of 4, the mean Lysholm score improved from 51 to 88, and the mean Cincinnati score improved from 44 to 84. Two BioStinger repair cases had joint-line tenderness from device migration confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging. No tenting of the skin or articular cartilage scuffing was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The success rate for the 29 suture repairs was 100% and for the 47 BioStinger repairs was 91%. These preliminary results are consistent with other repair techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Therapeutic Prospective Cohort Study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".