Two-Tunnel Transtibial Repair of Radial Meniscus Tears Produces Comparable Results to Inside-Out Repair of Vertical Meniscus Tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radial meniscus tears disrupt the circumferential fibers and thereby compromise meniscus integrity. Historically, radial tears were often treated with meniscectomy because of an incomplete understanding of the biomechanical consequences of these tears, limited information regarding the biomechanical performance of repair, and the technical difficulty associated with repair. There is a paucity of studies on the outcomes of the repair of radial meniscus tears. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to determine the outcomes of 2-tunnel transtibial repair of radial meniscus tears and compare these results to the outcomes of patients who underwent the repair of vertical meniscus tears with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The hypothesis was that radial and vertical meniscus tear repair outcomes were comparable. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who underwent 2-tunnel transtibial pullout repair for a radial meniscus tear were included in this study and compared with patients who underwent inside-out repair for a vertical meniscus tear. Subjective questionnaires were administered preoperatively and at a minimum of 2-year follow-up, including the Lysholm score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical component summary (PCS), the Tegner activity scale, and patient satisfaction. Analysis of covariance was used to compare postoperative outcome scores between the meniscus repair groups while accounting for baseline scores. Adjusted mean effects relative to the radial repair group were reported with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients who underwent 2-tunnel transtibial pullout repair for radial meniscus tears and 33 patients who underwent inside-out repair for vertical meniscus tears were available for follow-up at a mean of 3.5 years (range, 2.0-5.4 years). No preoperative outcome score significantly differed between the groups. There were no significant group differences for any of the 2-year postoperative outcome scores. Relative to the vertical repair group, the radial repair group exhibited an adjusted mean of -0.2 (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.9), -0.6 (95% CI, -6.6 to 5.5), and 5.1 (95% CI, -3.9 to 14.0) points on the SF-12 PCS, WOMAC, and Lysholm scores, respectively. CONCLUSION: The 2-tunnel transtibial pullout technique for the repair of radial meniscus tears produces similar clinical outcomes when compared with the repair of vertical meniscus tears at a mean 3.5 years' follow-up.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".