MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362602505 · doi:10.1007/s00167-023-07398-9

Patients with discoid menisci have similar clinical outcomes to those without discoid menisci when undergoing surgical intervention: a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4362602505 on OpenAlexaff
Yi David Diao, Prushoth Vivekanantha, Dan Cohen, Yuichi Hoshino, Kanto Nagai, Darren de

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryCochrane LibraryConcomitantTearsMeniscusRandomized controlled trialIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To compare post-operative clinical outcomes of discoid meniscus tear procedures such as saucerization with or without repair with those of non-discoid meniscus tears such as meniscectomy or repair in skeletally mature patients with no concomitant injuries. METHODS: Three databases MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 3rd, 2022 for literature describing patient-reported outcome measures after meniscus surgery in discoid or non-discoid meniscus tears. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Clinical outcome data on Lysholm, Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), revision rates, and complications were recorded, with MINORS and Detsky scores used for quality assessment. RESULTS: A total of 38 studies comprising 2213 patients were included with a mean age of 38.6 years (range: 9.0-64.4). The mean follow-up time was 54.1 months (range: 1-234) and the average percentage of female participants was 46.8% (range: 9.5-95.5). The mean change between pre-operative and post-operative Lysholm scores ranged from 21.0-39.0, 7.4-24.1, and 24.2-48.4 in the discoid, non-discoid meniscectomy, and non-discoid repair groups, respectively. The mean change in Tegner scores ranged from 0.0 to 2.3, 1.3, and 0.4-1.3 in the discoid, non-discoid meniscectomy, and non-discoid repair groups, respectively. Pre-operative IKDC scores were not reported, however mean post-operative IKDC scores ranged from 77.4 to 96.0, 46.9 to 85.7, and 63.1 to 94.0 in discoid, non-discoid meniscectomy, and non-discoid repair groups, respectively. Revision rates for discoid procedures, non-discoid meniscectomies, and non-discoid meniscus repairs ranged from 3.2 to 44.0%, 8.3 to 56.0%, and 5.9 to 28.0%, respectively. The most common reasons for revision were acute trauma and persistent pain. CONCLUSION: Discoid saucerization procedures with or without repair leads to similar Lysholm scores as non-discoid repair procedures, and similar IKDC scores and revision rates compared to non-discoid meniscectomy or repair procedures. Patients undergoing discoid procedures appeared to have slightly higher Tegner activity scores compared to patients undergoing non-discoid procedures; however this is to be considered in the context of a younger population of patients undergoing discoid procedures than non-discoid procedures. This information can help guide surgeons in the decision-making process when treating patients with discoid menisci, and should guide further investigations on this topic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207