Arthroscopic Medial Meniscal Root Reconstruction With Gracilis Autograft Is Safe and Improves 2‐Year Postoperative Patient‐Reported Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To describe patient‐reported clinical outcomes and complications of anatomic medial meniscal root reconstruction with gracilis autograft. Methods Data on patients who underwent arthroscopic medial meniscal root reconstruction with gracilis autograft were prospectively collected between 2017 and 2021 and retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were symptomatic posterior medial meniscal LaPrade type 2 root tears with no more than Outerbridge grade 2 chondrosis of any knee compartment with a minimum follow‐up period of 1 year. Patients with ligamentous instability and those with Workers’ Compensation status were excluded. Patient‐reported outcomes (12‐item Short Form Survey [SF‐12], visual analog scale [VAS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index [WOMAC], and Lysholm scores) were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively and were scored and recorded both preoperatively and at postoperative intervals. Data were analyzed using cubic spline regression models. The study was approved by the University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board. Results A consecutive series of 27 patients treated by a single surgeon were evaluated. Twenty‐one patients were included for data analysis (4 were excluded per criteria and 2 were lost to follow‐up) with an average age of 48.1 years (range, 16‐63 years). There were 18 female and 3 male patients. The average follow‐up time was 25.2 months (range, 12‐42 months). At the postoperative time points captured by the data examined, improvements in Lysholm, WOMAC, VAS, and SF‐12 physical component summary scores were found to be statistically significant ( P < .001, 95% confidence interval). Improvements in SF‐12 mental component summary scores, however, did not reach the level of statistical significance ( P = .262). Body mass index greater than 35 and age greater than 50 years were not found to be negative predictors of outcomes. Average patient‐reported outcomes at 2 years’ follow‐up improved from preoperatively as follows: Lysholm score, from 50 to 82.9; WOMAC score, from 53.9 to 87.4; and VAS score, from 5.1 to 1.2. No serious complications were observed. Conclusions Patients undergoing posterior medial meniscal root reconstruction showed statistically significant improvements in Lysholm, WOMAC, SF‐12 physical component summary, and VAS scores but not SF‐12 mental component summary scores at short‐term follow‐up. No serious complications or clinical failures occurred, and no patients required revision surgery. Level of Evidence Level IV, 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".