Dual‐Root Repair of Concomitant Medial and Lateral Meniscal Root Tears Improves Patient‐Reported Outcomes Whereas Isolated Single‐Root Repair or No Repair Does Not
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare patient‐reported outcomes (PROs), survivorship, and demographic characteristics of patients with medial and lateral meniscal root tears who underwent concurrent medial and lateral meniscal root (dual‐root) repairs (dual‐repair group) and patients who received an isolated repair of either the medial or lateral meniscal root, patients who were treated nonoperatively, or patients who underwent partial meniscectomy for concomitant tears (non–dual‐repair group). Methods A retrospective review of patients who presented to an orthopaedic surgery clinic with concomitant medial and lateral meniscal root tears was completed using magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate meniscal tears. Chart review for demographic characteristics and preoperative and minimum 2‐year postoperative PROs—including International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form 12 Physical Component Summary, and Short Form 12 Mental Component Summary—as well as information regarding mechanism of injury, was completed. The minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state were also assessed. Patients were split into two groups depending on whether they had both meniscal roots repaired (dual‐repair group) or they had one meniscus repaired, underwent partial meniscectomy, or underwent no meniscal repair (non–dual‐repair group). Statistical analysis was completed to determine between‐group differences in patient demographic characteristics and PROs. Results This study included 13 subjects with dual root tears, 7 of whom underwent dual repair and 6 of whom underwent isolated single‐root repair, meniscectomy, or no repair. The median age of the subjects was 57 years. At baseline and minimum 2‐year follow‐up, there were no differences in PROs between the two groups. Dual‐repair patients showed significant improvement in the Lysholm score ( P = .031) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index ( P = .031) from baseline to short‐term follow‐up, whereas the non–dual‐repair group did not show improvement in any PRO. More dual‐repair patients presented with traumatic injuries, whereas more non–dual‐repair patients had chronic conditions leading to injury. Conclusions Concurrent medial and lateral meniscal root repair significantly improves PROs compared with non‐dual repair, although small sample size and heterogeneity in knee pathology limit definitive conclusions. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".