Biologic Augmentation during Meniscal Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed the literature regarding utility of biologic augmentation in meniscal repair. We hypothesized that the addition of biologic augmentation during meniscal repair improves postoperative knee function and reduces risk of repair failure. PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched. Included studies were clinical studies in humans, published in English, and reported use of biologic augmentation techniques in addition to meniscal repair (including platelet-rich plasma [PRP], fibrin clot, bone marrow stimulation, meniscal wrapping, and bioscaffolds) for treatment of knee meniscal tears. Outcome measures included repair failure, repeat knee arthroscopic surgery, and magnetic resonance imaging), visual analog scale for pain, the International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Lysholm's Knee Scoring Scale, and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Study quality was assessed using the modified Coleman methodology score. Nineteen studies reported repair of 1,092 menisci including six studies that investigated fibrin clot augmentation, five studies that investigated PRP augmentation, three studies that investigated bone marrow stimulation augmentation, two studies that used meniscal wrapping augmentation, and three studies that used other techniques. The level of evidence ranged from I to IV and mean modified Coleman methodology score was 43 (range: 17-69), with higher scores noted in studies completed in recent years. PRP and bone marrow stimulation augmentation appear to decrease risk of failure in patients undergoing isolated meniscal repair but do not improve knee symptom scores. Fibrin clot and trephination augmentation techniques do not have sufficient evidence to support decreased failure risk at this time. Meniscal wrapping augmentation and scaffold implantation augmentation appear to be an attractive option to meniscectomy in complicated tears that are not candidates for repair alone, but further confirmatory studies are needed to support initial data. Evidence supporting augmentation of meniscal repair is limited at this time but suggests that the highest likelihood for effectiveness of augmentation is in the settings of isolated meniscal repair or meniscal repairs that would normally not be amenable to repair.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".