All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Meniscus Repair: Gaps in the Long-Term Current Evidence

Meniscal repair has become the preferred treatment for many meniscal tears. As a result, multiple arthroscopic techniques have evolved, including the all-inside (AI) and inside-out (IO) approaches, which have been widely studied in the current literature. The present article highlights key limitations in studies reporting long-term outcomes (≥5 years), notably the heterogeneity of failure definitions and the lack of subgroup stratification by clinically relevant factors such as age, concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and meniscal side (medial vs. lateral). To date, no clear superiority of the AI over the IO approach has been established. Redefining failure through multidimensional approaches that integrate structural, clinical, and patient-reported assessments will be crucial to ensure a consistent and patient-centered evaluation of repair success. Further research with robust subgroup analyses is needed to determine whether one technique confers superior long-term results in specific patient populations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioengineering
Published
2026-01-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13010062
Primary Topic
Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Meniscus Repair: Gaps in the Long-Term Current Evidence

Cariane Driad, Marie-Lyne Nault, David Mazy, Maika Bazebi
Bioengineering
Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
article

All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Meniscus Repair: Gaps in the Long-Term Current Evidence

Cariane Driad, Marie-Lyne Nault, David Mazy, Maika Bazebi
article en

Abstract

Meniscal repair has become the preferred treatment for many meniscal tears. As a result, multiple arthroscopic techniques have evolved, including the all-inside (AI) and inside-out (IO) approaches, which have been widely studied in the current literature. The present article highlights key limitations in studies reporting long-term outcomes (≥5 years), notably the heterogeneity of failure definitions and the lack of subgroup stratification by clinically relevant factors such as age, concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and meniscal side (medial vs. lateral). To date, no clear superiority of the AI over the IO approach has been established. Redefining failure through multidimensional approaches that integrate structural, clinical, and patient-reported assessments will be crucial to ensure a consistent and patient-centered evaluation of repair success. Further research with robust subgroup analyses is needed to determine whether one technique confers superior long-term results in specific patient populations.

BioengineeringVol. 13(1)
HTC (Taiwan) (TW), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine (CA), Cegep Edouard Montpetit (CA)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.