FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3205691848> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3205691848 endingPage "2276" @default.
• W3205691848 startingPage "2267" @default.
• W3205691848 abstract "Abstract Purpose Meniscus repair has gained increasing interest over the last two decades as loss of meniscus tissue predisposes to early onset knee arthritis. Although there are many reports of meniscus repair outcome in short-term studies, data on the long-term outcome of meniscus repair are still scarce. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the overall failure rate of meniscus repair with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Additionally, possible factors influencing meniscus repair outcome were assessed. Methods PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies of the last 20 years reporting on meniscus repair outcome with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search terms used for this study were ([meniscus OR meniscal] AND repair). Titles and abstracts were evaluated by two authors independently. Using meta package of R (version 3.6.2), random-effect models were performed to pool failure rates. Subgroup analyses were performed and effect estimates in form of an odds ratio with 95% CIs were established. Results In total, 12 studies with 864 patients were included. Degenerative tears were excluded in two studies and one study only included traumatic meniscus tears. Other studies did not state whether the cause of meniscus tear was degenerative or traumatic. Studies reporting meniscus repair outcome on root repairs, revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, discoid menisci or ramp lesions were excluded. Revision surgery was used as failure definition in all included studies. The overall failure rate of meniscal repair at a mean follow-up of 86 months was 19.1%. There was no significant difference in meniscus repair outcome when performed in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared to isolated meniscus repair (18.7% vs. 28%; n.s.) or when performed on the lateral meniscus compared to the medial meniscus (19.5% vs. 24.4%; n.s.). There was no significant difference of meniscus repair outcome between vertical/longitudinal tears and bucket-handle tears (n.s.). Thirty-six percent of meniscus repair failures occur after the second postoperative year. The only significant finding was that inside-out repair results in a lower failure rate compared to all-inside repair (5.6% vs. 22.3%; p = 0.009) at 5 years. Conclusion The overall meniscus repair failure rate remains nineteen percent in long-term studies. The cause of failure is poorly documented, and it remains unclear whether failure of the meniscus repair itself or additional adjacent tears lead to revision surgery. Despite the given technical advantages of all-inside repair devices, this meta-analysis cannot demonstrate superior outcomes compared to inside-out or outside-in repair at 5 years. Level of evidence IV." @default.
• W3205691848 created "2021-10-25" @default.
• W3205691848 creator A5000694792 @default.
• W3205691848 creator A5006981728 @default.
• W3205691848 creator A5025436509 @default.
• W3205691848 creator A5029141823 @default.
• W3205691848 creator A5046303570 @default.
• W3205691848 creator A5050267742 @default.
• W3205691848 creator A5073093158 @default.
• W3205691848 date "2021-10-20" @default.
• W3205691848 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W3205691848 title "Nineteen percent of meniscus repairs are being revised and failures frequently occur after the second postoperative year: a systematic review and meta-analysis with a minimum follow-up of 5 years" @default.
• W3205691848 cites W108489 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W1826764759 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W1946356995 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W1970132919 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W1974632920 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2002492125 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2010823243 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2012398701 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2015498454 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2017044005 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2026484716 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2036686843 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2053997250 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2070470498 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2072350675 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2087669457 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2088923485 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2090016991 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2113628416 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2113761408 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2146405105 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2151556602 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2152038842 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2202128261 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2279419697 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2344232231 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2527786681 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2796524945 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2885675882 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2891301183 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2896172548 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2903298592 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2917367718 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W2944201308 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W3012281234 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W3013475538 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W3120881176 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W3158133618 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W3208161134 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W4211248981 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W4239724809 @default.
• W3205691848 cites W4294215472 @default.
• W3205691848 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06770-x" @default.
• W3205691848 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34671817" @default.
• W3205691848 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3205691848 type Work @default.
• W3205691848 sameAs 3205691848 @default.
• W3205691848 citedByCount "22" @default.
• W3205691848 countsByYear W32056918482022 @default.
• W3205691848 countsByYear W32056918482023 @default.
• W3205691848 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3205691848 hasAuthorship W3205691848A5000694792 @default.
• W3205691848 hasAuthorship W3205691848A5006981728 @default.
• W3205691848 hasAuthorship W3205691848A5025436509 @default.
• W3205691848 hasAuthorship W3205691848A5029141823 @default.
• W3205691848 hasAuthorship W3205691848A5046303570 @default.
• W3205691848 hasAuthorship W3205691848A5050267742 @default.
• W3205691848 hasAuthorship W3205691848A5073093158 @default.
• W3205691848 hasBestOaLocation W32056918481 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C189178095 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C2776164576 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C2778275304 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C2778434673 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C2779162959 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C2780423099 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C2780887989 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C61511704 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C120665830 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C121332964 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C126322002 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C141071460 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C142724271 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C189178095 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C204787440 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C2776164576 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C2778275304 @default.
• W3205691848 hasConceptScore W3205691848C2778434673 @default.

• next