Extrusion After Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Is Lower or Equal With Bony Compared With Soft‐Tissue Root Fixation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide an update on the incidence and extent of graft extrusion after meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and to systematically review the literature to identify whether the type of root fixation or additional surgical techniques may reduce the risk of graft extrusion development. METHODS: A systematic search, in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, was conducted using the MEDLINE database, EMBASE database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. Patients undergoing medial meniscal allograft transplantation (MMAT) or lateral meniscal allograft transplantation (LMAT) were included. The primary outcome measure was meniscal extrusion measured on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans taken more than 6 weeks after MAT. The following extrusion outcomes were investigated: absolute extrusion (AE), relative percentage of extrusion (RPE), and proportion of major extrusion (PME). Additional surgical techniques that reduced the risk of graft extrusion development in the included comparative studies were identified. RESULTS: For MMAT, the pooled mean extrusion outcomes for soft-tissue versus bony fixation were as follows: AE of 3.2 mm versus 3.36 mm and RPE of 44.43% versus 33.18%. The pooled mean PME for MMAT with soft-tissue fixation was 51.62%. For LMAT, the pooled mean extrusion outcomes for soft-tissue versus bony fixation were as follows: AE of 3.72 mm versus 2.78 mm, RPE of 31.89% versus 29.47%, and PME of 64.37% versus 35.80%. Additional capsulodesis was identified as a technique to reduce LMAT extrusion. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that graft extrusion is a common finding after MMAT and LMAT, independent of the root fixation technique. However, MAT extrusion with bony fixation was, depending on the outcome measurement, lower than or equal to that with soft-tissue fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I, III, and IV studies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".