ArticleOrthopedic research and reviews2025
Effectiveness of Microfracture Augmentation in the Intercondylar Notch on Meniscal Healing: A Retrospective Comparative Study of Patients with Bucket-Handle and Longitudinal Meniscal Tears.
Article in Orthopedic research and reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of microfracture augmentation in the intercondylar notch on healing outcomes after arthroscopic meniscal repair, with stratification by meniscal tear type (bucket-handle vs longitudinal). Background: Meniscal tears are common knee injuries with variable healing potential. Microfracture augmentation, which involves small perforations in the intercondylar notch to release marrow elements, has been proposed as an adjunct to enhance meniscal repair. However, the impact of this technique across different tear types remains under investigation. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 173 patients aged 18-40 years with isolated bucket-handle or longitudinal meniscal tears undergoing arthroscopic repair were included. Patients were divided into two groups: microfracture-augmented repair (n = 87) and non-microfracture repair without augmentation (n = 86). All surgeries were performed by a single senior orthopedic surgeon, and postoperative rehabilitation protocols were standardized. Healing was assessed at 12 months using Barrett's criteria, the Apley Grinding Test, and clinical evaluation. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests, odds ratios, risk ratios, ROC curve analysis, and binary logistic regression to evaluate associations between surgical technique, tear type, and postoperative outcomes. Results: Microfracture augmentation was associated with significantly higher overall healing rates compared to non-microfracture repair (88.5% vs 64.0%, p < 0.001). Stratified by tear type, microfracture had the greatest benefit in bucket-handle tears (79.4% vs 37.8%, p < 0.001; OR = 6.353, 95% CI: 2.275-17.737; RR = 3.022, 95% CI: 1.503-6.076), while healing rates were similar for longitudinal tears between techniques (94.3% vs 92.7%, p = 0.745). Age, gender, and side of injury were not significant predictors of outcomes. Conclusion: Microfracture augmentation enhances healing after arthroscopic meniscal repair, particularly in bucket-handle tears, while longitudinal tear outcomes are favorable regardless of augmentation. These findings emphasize the importance of tear type in guiding the choice of surgical technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.