Comparable Outcomes After Bucket-Handle Meniscal Repair and Vertical Meniscal Repair Can Be Achieved at a Minimum 2 Years’ Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meniscal tears can lead to significant pain and disability, necessitating surgical treatment. Nondisplaced vertical tears are usually smaller in size and can be repaired in most cases; however, bucket-handle tears are usually larger and displaced, and the repair of these tears can be challenging. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to report the outcomes after inside-out vertical mattress suture meniscal repair of bucket-handle tears and to compare these outcomes with those of patients who underwent repair of nondisplaced vertical meniscal tears with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. The hypothesis was that the outcomes of bucket-handle tear repair would be comparable with those of nondisplaced vertical meniscal tear repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who underwent inside-out repair of a bucket-handle meniscal tear or a nondisplaced vertical meniscal tear with a minimum 2 years' follow-up were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they had a diagnosis of a meniscal root tear, underwent a concomitant procedure for a chondral injury, or underwent previous surgical treatment of the same meniscus. Subjective questionnaires were administered preoperatively and postoperatively, including the Lysholm score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), the Tegner activity scale, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients underwent repair for vertical meniscal tears (mean, 7 sutures), while 38 patients underwent repair for bucket-handle meniscal tears (mean, 11 sutures), with a mean follow-up of 3.1 years (range, 2-6 years). There were no significant differences in the preoperative outcome scores between the 2 groups. Significant improvements in patient-reported outcome scores from preoperatively to postoperatively were found in both groups. A direct comparison of the bucket-handle tear group to the vertical tear group did not exhibit significantly different SF-12 PCS scores (54.0 vs 51.6, respectively; P = .244), SF-12 MCS scores (55.3 vs 52.5, respectively; P = .165), WOMAC scores (8.1 vs 9.0, respectively; P = .729), Lysholm scores (84.6 vs 80.8, respectively; P = .276), Tegner scores (5.5 vs 5.5, respectively; P = .970), and patient satisfaction scores (7.4 vs 7.7, respectively; P = .570). Additionally, a comparison of acute and chronic bucket-handle tears demonstrated no significant difference in outcome scores. CONCLUSION: The repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears with multiple vertical mattress sutures using an inside-out technique yielded improved results and low failure rates, comparable with outcomes after repair of nondisplaced vertical meniscal tears. The findings of this study support repairing bucket-handle meniscal tears with multiple vertical mattress sutures when possible.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".