Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41466896›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Collagen-Based Interventions for Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes, Safety, and MRI Findings.

Mohamed Zahed, Mahmoud Elmesalmi, Ziad El Menawy, Nour Elnaggar, Ahmed Elkilany, Salam Elhanash, Mahmoud Odeh, Sara E Elbahnasawy, Sherif I Elhabbak, Mohamed Hesham Gamal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mohamed ZahedOrthopaedics, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Oxford, GBR.
Mahmoud ElmesalmiTrauma and Orthopaedics, St George's University Hospitals, London, GBR.
Ziad El MenawyTrauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, GBR.
Nour ElnaggarMicrobiology, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, EGY.
Ahmed ElkilanyOrthopaedics and Trauma, Worthing Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Worthing, GBR.
Salam ElhanashTrauma and Orthopaedics, St George's University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, London, GBR.
Mahmoud OdehTrauma and Orthopaedics, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, GBR.
Sara E ElbahnasawyDiagnostic Radiology, Menofia University Hospital, Menofia, EGY.
Sherif I ElhabbakSurgery, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, October 6 University, Giza, EGY.
Mohamed Hesham GamalPharmacy, Banha University Hospitals, Banha, EGY.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meniscal tears represent a significant clinical challenge worldwide, with traditional treatments ranging from conservative management to meniscectomy. Collagen-based interventions have emerged as promising alternatives, including collagen meniscus implant, arthroscopic matrix-based meniscus repair, and oral collagen supplementation. Despite their growing use, the comparative efficacy and safety profiles of these treatments are unclear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes, safety, and structural changes of these three collagen-based interventions for meniscal pathology. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Meta-Analyses and Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched five electronic databases for studies evaluating collagen-based interventions in adults with meniscopathy. The included studies reported functional outcomes, quality of life measures, or pain scores using validated instruments. Study designs included randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, and case series. Quality assessment was conducted using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 27 studies involving 1,264 patients were included. The collagen meniscus implant demonstrated sustained functional improvement over extended follow-up periods with Lysholm scores ranging from 80 to 95 and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores of 77-95; however, MRI revealed predominant partial resorption (79%-92% of cases), frequent meniscal extrusion (68%-72%), and failure rates ranging from 1.5% to 40% (averaging 11%-12%). Arthroscopic matrix-based meniscus repair showed progressive improvement with subjective IKDC scores advancing from 77-79 at two years to 85-89 at 10 years, and Lysholm scores improving from 88-89 at two years to 92-93 at 10 years. MRI evaluations demonstrated favorable structural outcomes with 85% achieving Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS) scores ≤1, and lower failure rates (4%-21%). Oral supplementation provided rapid symptomatic relief within one to three months with significant improvements in pain (Visual Analog Score (VAS): 4.0) and quality of life (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): 52.4). No major adverse events were reported. However, collagen meniscal implant (CMI) showed higher revision surgery rates. Arthroscopic matrix-based meniscus repair (AMMR) appears most favorable for long-term outcomes in complex tears, demonstrating superior structural preservation and lower failure rates compared to CMI. CMI remains an option for partial deficiency despite high resorption rates, while oral supplementation provides a safe, conservative management option. However, these findings must be interpreted cautiously due to the absence of direct comparative studies and substantial heterogeneity. Robust head-to-head randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols are essential for evidence-based clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

arthroscopic matrix repaircollagen interventionscollagen supplementationmeniscal pathologymeniscal tearsmeniscus implantsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41466896
PMCPMC12744330

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.