The Impact of Concomitant Meniscus Repair on Functional and Patient Reported Outcomes at Return to Activity in Paediatric Patients Undergoing ACL Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Paediatric patients undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) reconstruction often present with a repairable meniscus tear. When a conservative early post-operative rehabilitation protocol is used to protect the meniscus repair, some have wondered whether this has an effect on functional and subjective outcomes, or time required, at return to activity. Purpose: The goal of this study was to compare the quantitative lower limb functional measures and subjective patient reported outcome scores at Return to Activity (RTA) in paediatric patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, with or without meniscus repair. Methods: This study was performed as a retrospective comparative cohort analysis of prospectively collected data in paediatric patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. Inclusion criteria for this study included a full data set and a visit to our biomechanics lab post-operatively, after being cleared for RTA by their attending surgeon. If a repairable meniscus injury was present, it was repaired concurrently with ACL reconstruction. Patients with a meniscus repair were provided rehabilitation guidelines that included partial weightbearing and limited range of motion (ROM) for six weeks, whereas full weightbearing and unrestricted ROM was recommended for the non-meniscal repair group. Postoperative quantitative knee functional outcome variables (drop vertical jump ground reaction forces, isometric knee extension/flexion strength, and hip abduction strength) were expressed as limb symmetry indices (LSIs; reconstructed limb/uninjured limb). Patient reported subjective knee outcome scores (Tegner and HSS Pedi-FABS) were also obtained. Differences in outcome measures were assessed using Mann-Whitney U-test and independent T-tests. Results: Twenty-four paediatric ACL reconstruction patients met criteria for inclusion in this study. Thirteen patients had a meniscus repair (median age 15 (13-17)) and 11 patients did not (median age 15.8 (14-17)). The median days between surgery and follow-up was 267 (168-460) days for the meniscus repair group and 251 (167-435) days for the non-meniscus repair group. There were no differences between the groups for the postoperative drop vertical jump test (p=0.21), knee extension/flexion strength (p=0.88/0.46) and hip abduction strength (p=0.46). Both groups also displayed similar Tegner (6.1/6.2) and Pedi-FABS (12.5/12.8) scores. Conclusion: Despite conservative weight-bearing and range of motion restrictions, repair of the meniscus in combination with ACL reconstruction in pediatric patients does not appear to induce a meaningful strength deficit at the return-to-activity evaluation phase, and is therefore not expected to influence return to activity in comparison with non-meniscus repair patients. This is important guidance for paediatric patients, families, and rehabilitation professionals involved in the care of young athletes. [Table: see text][Table: see text]
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".