FasT‐Fix Meniscal Repair: Mid‐term Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical success of the FasT-Fix meniscal repair device (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA) associated with an accelerated rehabilitation program. METHODS: A prospectively collected consecutive series of meniscal repairs performed with the FasT-Fix device was studied. The Lysholm, Tegner, Cincinnati, and International Knee Documentation Committee activity scores, along with the clinical examination findings and adverse events, were recorded for all patients. Associated procedures were recorded. An accelerated postoperative rehabilitation program was followed, independent of concurrent anterior cruciate ligament surgery. RESULTS: Forty-one meniscal repairs were performed, with an average follow-up of 30.7 months (range, 12 to 58 months). Twenty-nine of 41 repairs were performed in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligment reconstruction. The other repairs were in stable knees. There were 26 medial and 15 lateral meniscus repairs. Both menisci were repaired in 5 knees. Repeat arthroscopies were performed for 12 repairs and 7 (17%) were found to have failed. The preoperative and postoperative Lysholm, Tegner, Cincinnati, and International Knee Documentation Committee activity scores were 47.3 and 87.4, 3.4 and 7.2, 38.7 and 82.8, and 2.3 and 3.4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The FasT-Fix meniscal repair associated with an accelerated rehabilitation program resulted in clinically effective meniscal repair in 83% at the time of follow-up. Clinical outcome measures all improved. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".