Advances in repair of non-discoid meniscus injuries in children: a narrative review

Non-Discoid meniscus injuries in children and adolescents are generally less common than in adults. However, with the increasing number of children participating in physical exercise and the intensification of exercise intensity, the frequency of meniscus injuries is gradually rising. Currently, research on the diagnosis and treatment of meniscus tears in adults is quite advanced, and some progress has also been made in the research on the repair of meniscus injuries in children. Nevertheless, there is a lack of consensus regarding the repair of meniscus injuries in this population. This study reviews relevant literature on the treatment of meniscus injuries in children in recent years, summarizing aspects such as meniscus vascular distribution, injury classification, mechanisms of injury, and repair methods, aiming to provide a reference for the repair of meniscus injuries in children. This narrative review focuses specifically on non-discoid meniscus injuries in children and adolescents; discoid meniscus lesions, which differ from non-discoid lesions in pathogenesis, morphology, therapeutic approach and outcomes, are excluded from detailed discussion.

1 Introduction

The meniscus plays a crucial role in maintaining knee joint stability, load sharing, joint lubrication, shock absorption, and coordinating knee joint activities (1, 2). Meniscus injuries are significantly detrimental to the knee joint and can lead to premature post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) (3, 4). Typically, meniscus injuries in children are less common than in adults (5). However, with the increasing number of children engaging in physical exercise and the rising intensity of these activities, the incidence of meniscus injuries in children is gradually increasing due to a greater appreciation of the significance of meniscal injuries with enhanced clinical suspicion and radiological investigations (6, 7). It is estimated that 6%–8% of young people in the United States suffer from meniscus injuries each year and also a significant rise in the incidence of meniscal lesions in pediatric patient above at the age of 13 in Italy (8, 9). Furthermore, 80%–90% of these injuries in the United States are related to children's participation in sports, with approximately 50% of patients potentially developing knee osteoarthritis (OA) within 10–20 years after the injury (10, 11). Although certain progress has been made in research on the repair of meniscus injuries in children, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the best approaches for such repairs (12, 13). This article summarizes the literature on meniscus vascular distribution, injury classification, injury mechanisms, and repair strategies in children, aiming to provide valuable insights for the management of meniscus injuries in this population. This narrative review focuses on non-discoid meniscus injuries in children and adolescents and excludes discoid meniscus lesions from detailed discussion, because discoid menisci represent a distinct clinical entity with different pathogenesis, morphology, therapeutic approaches and outcomes. For comprehensive discussions of discoid meniscus, readers are referred to dedicated studies (1).

2 Vascular distribution

The vascular distribution of the meniscus is particularly important as it plays a crucial role in the healing of meniscus injuries (14, 15). However, the characteristics of meniscus vascularization in children differ from those in adults. From birth, the meniscus begins to vascularize, with the vascularization range of the neonatal meniscus accounting for about two-thirds of the total blood vessels. As age increases (usually starting at 10 years old), meniscus vascularization gradually decreases (13). After 12 years old, the degree of meniscus vascularization approaches that of adults, with the proportion of vascularization around it being 10%–30% (16). It is evident that the vascular distribution of the meniscus in children encompasses a wider range than that in adults.

The blood supply of the meniscus primarily originates from the capillary plexus surrounding the joint capsule and thesynovial tissue (14). Less than one-third of the meniscus is directly nourished by blood vessels, while most of the remaining tissues depend solely on the surrounding diffuse blood vessels for nutrition (17). KIM W et al. demonstrated that the adjacent synovial tissue possesses a rich blood supply, significantly influencing the healing potential of the meniscus (18). Similar to adults, the meniscus in children can be categorized into three vascular regions (19): the peripheral tissue, abundant in blood vessels, is referred to as the “red-red” zone; the central tissue, which receives a diffuse supply, is termed the “white-white” zone; and the area between the two zones is known as the “red-white” zone. Compared to the meniscus in the “red-red” zone, the tissue in the “white-white” zone, characterized by poor blood supply, exhibits comparatively weaker healing capabilities (14, 20). The meniscus in children demonstrates a broad vascular distribution and a rich blood supply. Theoretically, its healing potential following injury is greater than that in adults, providing crucial guidance for treatment method selection.

3 Classification

Meniscal tear classification is commonly organized along two complementary axes: an anatomic (zonal) classification that denotes the location of the lesion within the meniscus, and a morphologic classification that describes the tear pattern (21–23). Historically, Cooper et al. proposed a 12-region division of each meniscus, which remains of historical interes (24). However, the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine (ISAKOS) meniscal zonal classification is now widely recommended as a contemporary, standardized framework for reporting meniscal pathology and guiding clinical decision-making (23). Therefore, in this review we adopt the ISAKOS zonal classification as the primary anatomic scheme and retain a concise description of Cooper's 12-region approach for historical context; morphologic tear descriptors remain complementary and are used to guide treatment choices. Compared to adults, meniscus injuries in children follow the same classification (25). Although pediatric meniscal pathology includes both discoid and non-discoid types, the present review focuses on non-discoid meniscus injuries and does not address discoid meniscus lesions in detail.

The meniscus is primarily composed of type I collagen fibers arranged in a circular pattern (26). As such, it can be classified based on the direction of the injury in relation to the meniscus plane and the orientation of the collagen fibers, often encompassing horizontal tears (Figure 1), vertical tears (Figure 2), radical tears, parrot-beak, tears, RAMP lesions, hypermobile meniscus and mixed tears.

Figure 1

Figure 1. An example of sagittal image showing a lateral meniscus horizontal tear (12 years,female).

Figure 2

Figure 2. An example of sagittal image showing a lateral meniscus vertical tear (14 years male).

A long, complete longitudinal tear is typically referred to as a “bucket-handle” tear, while a tear that contains multiple types is classified as a complex tear.

Vertical tears are the most prevalent in children, with approximately 80% occurring in stable knee joints (27). This type of tear aligns with the direction of the collagen fibers, resulting in generally favorable postoperative healing (28). Vertical lesions in unstable knee can progress forward in the meniscus, forming a bucket-handle tear (29).

Radial tears: Radial tears are defined as cleavages that extend approximately perpendicular to the circumferential collagen fibers of the meniscus, interrupting hoop stresses and potentially resulting in meniscal extrusion and altered tibiofemoral contact mechanics. Small, non-displaced radial tears may be managed non-operatively (30). When a radial tear produces mechanical symptoms, functional instability, or extrusion, particularly when located in the midbody or anterior horn, surgical repair is indicated. Horizontal suture configurations are commonly employed for midbody or anterior radial tears to limit extrusion and restore stability. Given the relatively rich peripheral vascularity in children, repair indications may be broader than in adults.

Parrot-beak tears: Parrot-beak tears (also described as flap or oblique marginal tears) involve a short oblique lesion of the meniscal margin that commonly produces a hooked or flipped fragment resembling a “parrot's beak”. Clinically, these lesions may present with focal joint line pain, catching, or intermittent locking. Magnetic resonance imaging can suggest the presence of a parrot-beak lesion, but arthroscopic inspection is often required to determine reparability and to guide intraoperative management. In skeletally immature patients, preservation of functional meniscal tissue is paramount; when repair is technically feasible and tissue quality allows, suture repair should be attempted. If the fragment is irreparable or causes persistent mechanical symptoms, limited partial meniscectomy to remove the symptomatic flap while preserving as much native meniscus as possible is recommended.

RAMP lesions: RAMP lesions refer to injuries at the posteromedial meniscocapsular junction of the medial meniscus, including detachment of the posterior horn from the capsule or meniscotibial structures. These lesions are often associated with ACL injuries and may contribute to persistent posteromedial instability if unrecognized. Given the high rate of concomitant ACL and meniscal injuries in the pediatric population, surgeons should maintain a high index of suspicion for RAMP lesions in patients with ACL tears and perform careful arthroscopic evaluation of the posteromedial compartment. Confirmed RAMP lesions should be repaired, frequently at the time of ACL reconstruction, to restore posteromedial stability and to facilitate meniscal healing.

Hypermobile meniscus: A hypermobile meniscus is a functional condition rather than a discrete tear; it is characterized by abnormal mobility of a meniscal segment due to laxity or detachment of peripheral attachments or roots. Patients with a hypermobile meniscus may present with pain, catching, or mechanical blocking comparable to meniscal tears. Diagnosis often requires arthroscopic evaluation. Management focuses on restoring normal meniscal fixation, arthroscopic repair or fixation of the unstable segment is appropriate when hypermobility correlates with the patient's symptoms. As with other meniscal pathologies in children, strategies should prioritize preservation of viable meniscal tissue.

4 Injury mechanisms

Meniscus injuries can either be acute or degenerative. Acute meniscus injuries in adults are typically associated with strenuous exercise and often occur alongside anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears or absence, while in the elderly, they frequently coincide with degenerative changes (31). In children, meniscus injuries are generally traumatic, with causes including knee joint rotation, hyperextension, or direct violent impact (32). There is a strong correlation between ACL injuries and meniscus injuries, with this type accounting for about 50% of meniscus injuries in children (15, 33). This association may be explained by the role of ligament integrity in maintaining knee stability: loss of ligamentous stability (for example, chronic ACL deficiency) predisposes to secondary meniscal degeneration and tearing, rather than implying that ligaments protect the meniscus at the exact time of an acute ligament rupture.

Non-discoid meniscus injuries primarily occur in sports such as football, basketball, and wrestling, which involve shear and rotational forces. These injuries are often caused by sudden knee joint bending following foot contact with the ground (34). Discoid meniscus represents a congenital morphological and histological variant with different biomechanical and clinical characteristics compared with non-discoid menisci (35). However, there are currently no reports detailing the specific mechanism behind discoid meniscus tear injuries (36). Detailed discussion of discoid meniscus pathogenesis, clinical features, and management is beyond the scope of this review.

For clarity and to better guide clinical decision-making, pediatric meniscal pathology can be classified into four principal categories: (1) isolated atraumatic lesions; (2) isolated traumatic lesions; (3) combined traumatic lesions (with relevant subtypes); and (4) secondary meniscal injuries developing in the setting of ligamentous insufficiency

4.1 Isolated atraumatic lesions

Isolated atraumatic meniscal abnormalities are less common in children than in adults. Imaging appearances that suggest horizontal or degenerative-appearing meniscal signal changes in the pediatric knee should be interpreted with caution because developmental and benign signal variants may mimic true tears on MRI. Pediatric-specific data on the prevalence and optimal management strategies for these atraumatic entities are limited.

4.2 Isolated traumatic lesions

Traumatic meniscal tears in children commonly result from rotational forces, hyperextension, or direct impact to the knee (37). Non-discoid meniscal injuries commonly occur during sports with pivoting and cutting movements such as football, basketball and wrestling (37). The tear pattern typically aligns with the meniscal collagen orientation; vertical tears predominate in stable knees and tend to have favorable healing potential after repair (26–28).

4.3 Combined traumatic lesions

There is a strong association between ACL rupture and meniscal tears in children, reported to account for approximately 50% of pediatric meniscal injuries (15, 33). This association is best understood in terms of joint stability: the integrity of the knee ligaments is essential for maintaining normal knee biomechanics, and chronic loss of ligamentous support (for example, chronic ACL deficiency) results in instability that increases the risk of secondary meniscal degeneration or tearing. Therefore, clinicians should carefully examine the meniscus in patients with ACL injury or chronic ACL deficiency, since instability-related, secondary meniscal damage may develop over time. Epidemiological studies indicate that the likelihood of combined ACL-meniscal injury may involve the lateral meniscus in the majority of cases (38). RAMP lesions represent a clinically important subtype in the setting of ACL rupture owing to potential instability and implications for repair. The prevalence of ACL-associated ramp lesions in children and adolescents is similar to that in adult populations (15%–24%) (39). Moreover, meniscal tear, displacement, and entrapment are commonly associated with femoral shaft fractures, tibial plateau fractures, and tibial spine avulsion fractures (40).

4.4 Secondary meniscal injuries in ACL-deficient knees

Chronic ACL deficiency alters knee biomechanics and increases stress on the meniscus, which can promote secondary meniscal degeneration and complex tear patterns. Biologic responses after meniscal injury (for example, the release of inflammatory mediators such as interleukin-1) and altered load distribution contribute to cartilage loss and progression toward osteoarthritis (41). The present review emphasizes that simultaneous ACL reconstruction may protect the repaired meniscus and is associated with better repair outcomes (42), but detailed pediatric-specific quantitative data on the development, timing, and frequency of secondary meniscal lesions in ACL-deficient knees are not summarized.

5 Treatment

The treatment goal for meniscus injuries is to restore the natural biomechanics of the knee joint, relieving discomfort and slowing the progression of osteoarthritis (43). Currently, the approach to treating meniscus injuries in children typically adheres to the principles applied in adults,with options including conservative management and surgical interventions (meniscectomy, suturing, or alternative methods) (44). The optimal clinical treatment plan depends not only on the location, nature, and type of tear but also on the patient's age and potential complications, such as obesity or accompanying cartilage and ligament injuries.

5.1 Non-operative management

The mechanical stability of meniscus tears should be assessed primarily on morphological characteristics, such as tear length, width and orientation, involvement of the meniscus, whether the tear is full-thickness, and the presence or degree of displacement or fragment mobility, rather than on vascularity alone. Vascular supply principally determines biological healing potential, and therefore informs the likelihood of repair. However, vascularity does not by itself define biomechanical stability. Accordingly, non-operative management is indicated based on morphology and clinical context.Peripheral meniscus tears measuring less than 10 mm (involving 10% to 30% of the lateral meniscus) are generally considered relatively stable, and non-operative treatment proves to be effective (30). Although the relatively rich vascularization of children's menisci confers greater healing potential for peripheral (“red-red”) tears, the presence of vascularity should be used to estimate biologic healing capacity rather than to infer mechanical stability when selecting conservative vs. surgical treatment. Consequently, non-operative treatment is often employed in the following scenarios: Asymptomatic meniscus tears non-displaced stable menisci (length ≤10 mm, involving 10%–30% of the outer vascular area of the meniscus, with passive displacement <3 mm); Radial tears ≤3 mm.

Conservative treatment typically involves knee joint immobilization, physical therapy, and the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Prolonged immobilization of the knee can lead to stiffness, muscle atrophy in the affected limb, and ultimately hinder functional recovery (45). While physical therapy and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may alleviate temporary symptoms, they do not alter the outcomes of meniscus injuries. Furthermore, long-term oral use of non-steroidal drugs poses a risk of peptic ulcers. Therefore, the treating physician should thoroughly inform the child's parents about the risks associated with conservative treatment. If non-surgical methods prove ineffective, surgical intervention should be considered.

5.2 Surgical interventions

In pediatric patients, preservation of the native meniscus by arthroscopic repair should be the primary treatment objective and should be attempted in almost all meniscal injuries, unless an intra-operative assessment documents a substantive tissue defect that precludes secure suture fixation (for example, extensive substance loss or irreparably fragmented/degenerative tissue). This repair-first strategy is supported by the greater vascularity and biological healing potential of the pediatric meniscus, and by clinical series reporting high success rates of meniscal repair in children, including a reported arthroscopic repair success rate exceeding 80% in the red-white zone and favorable outcomes across vascular zones (20, 46, 47). Prioritising repair in children contrasts with common adult practice in which meniscectomy is more frequently performed for complex, degenerative, or avascular tears, and aims to minimise the long-term biomechanical and degenerative consequences of meniscal tissue loss (43, 48, 49). Therefore, unless irreparable substance defect is present, meniscal repair should be considered the default surgical strategy for children and adolescents. Meniscus injuries in children possess a greater healing capacity than those in adults (46). Consequently, with the exception of complex types deemed unreparable during arthroscopy, all other types of meniscus tears in children should be considered for surgical repair. Previous studies (17, 50) indicate numerous reports of successful repairs of meniscus injuries in the avascular area among children. The success rate of arthroscopic repair for meniscus tears in the “red-white” zone exceeds 80%, and the indications for repair even extend to the “white-white” zone of one-third of the meniscus. Recently, Cinque et al. demonstrated that regardless of the vascular zone in which the meniscus tear is located, children have a high likelihood of achieving a good repair outcome (20). The duration of non-operative management reported for pediatric meniscal injuries varies in the literature. Several studies recommend an initial structured conservative trial of approximately 12 weeks (51–53). Conversion to operative management is generally considered for patients with acute, large, displaced tears and subacute or chronic tears that cause persistent pain and discomfort, mechanical symptoms, or knee instability, which should be addressed surgically (11).

Large meniscus tears (>40 mm) are often quite unstable, and conservative treatment may not lead to spontaneous repair. Arthroscopic surgical repair has become the primary treatment strategy. The choice of surgical method typically relies on an objective preoperative evaluation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most commonly utilized method for diagnosing meniscus tears and conducting preoperative assessments (40, 54). MRI is the most commonly utilized modality for diagnosing meniscal pathology and for preoperative assessment in children (40, 54). However, pediatric knee MRI can demonstrate a horizontal intrameniscal linear signal that is confined to the meniscal substance and oriented parallel to the meniscal plane. This pattern corresponds to an intrasubstance lesion often described as a Type II lesion (i.e., not extending to the articular surface) and may represent intrameniscal vascular channels or mucoid (intrasubstance) degeneration rather than a surface-extending tear. Such findings, which can be bilateral, should not be interpreted in isolation as an indication for arthroscopic surgery.

Accordingly, imaging must be interpreted in the context of a careful clinical assessment. In the absence of objective clinical symptoms or reproducible mechanical signs, operative intervention is not recommended. When MRI and clinical findings remain equivocal, a stepwise management strategy is advised: initial non-operative treatment; selective repeat imaging only if clinical symptoms persist or worsen; and deliberate exclusion of alternative or concomitant causes. Prior to diagnostic arthroscopy, less invasive confirmatory measures may be considered to help ascertain the pain generator, such as diagnostic intra-articular infiltration with local anesthetic without corticosteroid, thereby reducing unnecessary arthroscopic procedures in children. Diagnostic arthroscopy should be reserved for patients with persistent, clinically significant symptoms, objective mechanical signs, or failure of an adequate course of non-operative management and adjunctive investigations (55).

5.2.1 Partial meniscus resection

Partial meniscectomy should be regarded as a salvage procedure in the pediatric population and avoided whenever repair is feasible. Preservation of native meniscal tissue is a primary objective in children and adolescents because meniscal tissue loss is associated with long-term adverse biomechanical consequences and an increased risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Biomechanical and clinical data cited in this review demonstrate that meniscectomy markedly increases tibiofemoral contact pressures (an increase of 80%–90%) (43), and pediatric series report unfavorable long-term outcomes after meniscectomy (75% symptomatic at 5 years; 80% degenerative imaging changes; 60% dissatisfaction) (49). Total meniscectomy (complete removal of the meniscus) should be avoided and is no longer recommended. Indications for limited (partial) meniscal resection include chronic irreparable tears, complex tears not amenable to repair, tears involving the avascular inner third of the meniscus (“white-white” zone), and symptomatic discoid meniscus lesions that require reshaping (trimming). Consequently, in pediatric patients, meniscectomy should be reserved for true salvage situations in which the meniscal tissue is irreparably damaged, for example, gross tissue fragmentation, severe degeneration with poor tissue quality, or when there is insufficient tissue remaining after multiple failed repair attempts.

Complex meniscal tears are not an absolute contraindication to repair. Advances in arthroscopic techniques, suture devices, and biological augmentation have expanded the reparability of tears in children and adolescents, and successful repairs have been reported even for tears extending into traditionally avascular regions (27, 46). Importantly, meniscal repairs performed concomitantly with ACL reconstruction have been associated with improved healing and superior clinical outcomes compared with isolated meniscal repair, likely due to a more favorable intra-articular biological milieu and mechanical protection provided by ACL reconstruction (42). A meta-analysis comparing meniscal repair with meniscectomy further supports tissue-preserving strategies in younger patients (56).

When meniscectomy is unavoidable, the resection should be limited and tissue-sparing principles followed. Partial meniscectomy is preferred to subtotal or total resection; surgeons should endeavour to preserve the peripheral meniscal rim (approximately 1 cm when technically feasible) to maintain hoop stress transmission and reduce the risk of early degenerative change. Careful intraoperative technique, including staged visualization and judicious use of instruments to avoid inadvertent over-resection, is recommended. Meniscal-preserving alternatives such as meniscal scaffolds or allogeneic meniscal transplantation should be considered in symptomatic meniscal deficiency when the knee is stable (57–60).

Overall, a “repair-first” strategy should guide the management of pediatric meniscal tears, with meniscectomy reserved for irreparable or salvage situations.

5.2.2 Meniscus suture

In the pediatric population a repair-first strategy is recommended. Meniscal suture should be attempted in the vast majority of meniscal tears whenever technically feasible (47). With the exception of tears judged irreparable at arthroscopy, most tear types in children are appropriate candidates for repair because of the comparatively greater vascularity and intrinsic healing potential of the pediatric meniscus (16). Typical indications for meniscal suture in children include acute tears (preferably <8 weeks from injury), tears located in the peripheral vascularized zones (middle and outer third: red-red and red-white), intact bucket-handle tears, and tears occurring in a stable knee (56, 61). Werner et al. found that the proportion of meniscus suture repairs in children surpassed that of meniscectomy, with increases from 2007 to 2011 being 55% and 38%, respectively (61). The earlier the surgical intervention, the higher the cure rate for meniscus tears in children (62). Although the inner avascular “white-white” zone has historically been considered less favorable for repair, in children successful repairs extending into portions of the avascular zone have been reported; therefore, repair may be considered in selected cases after careful intra-operative assessment. In addition to tear chronicity and vascular zone, tear morphology is a key determinant of mechanical stability and suitability for repair. Simple longitudinal/vertical tears, which are reported as the most prevalent pattern in children and generally align with the circumferential collagen fibers, resulting in favorable healing, and small peripheral vertical tears are often relatively stable and are good candidates for repair. By contrast, radial, horizontal, bucket-handle and complex tears may disrupt circumferential fiber continuity, present greater technical challenges, and require specific suture strategies. When repair is not reasonable. Primary suture repair may be not reasonable or technically infeasible in a limited number of circumstances, including: chronic or degenerative tears; complex tears judged irreparable at arthroscopy; severe tissue loss or fragmentation that precludes stable fixation; and certain symptomatic discoid meniscal tears for which resection is indicated. These situations have conventionally been considered indications for partial or subtotal meniscectomy. The choice of suture technique should be guided by tear pattern and location. Vertical sutures are generally preferred for longitudinal tears; horizontal sutures are commonly used for radial tears of the middle and anterior segments to limit extrusion and restore reduction. Needle passage techniques commonly used include inside-out repair for the body, posterior horn and bucket-handle tears; outside-in repair for body and anterior horn tears; and all-inside repair for selected posterior-horn and lateral-body tears. To avoid over-tightening, ensure stability and reduce the risk of secondary ischemia, a suture spacing of approximately 5–7 mm is recommended (63).

When meniscal repair is performed concurrently with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, clinical outcomes are generally improved compared with isolated meniscal repair (37). Concomitant ACL reconstruction may enhance meniscal healing and protect the repair from re-injury.

Some surgeons perform a concomitant “healing response” at the time of isolated meniscal repair as a biological augmentation strategy. Techniques described under this approach include trephination (creation of vascular channels) or microfracture of the adjacent subchondral bone to promote ingress of marrow-derived cells and growth factors into the repair site. Although high-quality evidence supporting routine use of these adjunctive procedures is limited, they are commonly applied in clinical practice to enhance meniscal healing, particularly when attempting repair in areas with limited vascularity.

A longer return to sport (RTS) period is seen in the meniscus repair cases (3–4 months postoperatively) when compared with the partial meniscectomy cases (6 weeks postoperatively) (64). If meniscus repair is associated with ACL reconstruction, usually RTS takes longer (8 months) vs. isolated meniscal repair (6 months) (65). However, Lehoczky et al. report similar RTS after ACL reconstruction with or without meniscal repair a prospective cohort study (66).

5.2.3 Alternative approaches

Whether in adults or children, preserving the functional meniscus as much as possible is crucial for the long-term function of the knee joint and serves as the guiding principle for treating meniscus defects. For symptomatic meniscus deficiency with a stable knee joint, post-meniscectomy syndrome, and severe meniscus injuries that cannot be corrected by suture or partial resection, allogeneic meniscus transplantation (MAT) and meniscus scaffold transplantation may be employed. Milachowski et al. (57) first described MAT, which has been proven to relieve knee pain and improve joint function in young patients (58, 60). To maintain or restore the function and mechanical properties of the knee joint, MAT, as a state-of-the-art clinical technology, is increasingly applied to severe or irreparable meniscus injuries.

Ideally, when the meniscus is absent, symptomatic, and the knee joint stable, MAT should be performed since the graft can reduce peak contact pressure between the knee joint surfaces and may slow degenerative changes in articular cartilage. A study demonstrated that in a prospective MAT involving 280 patients under 18 years old (median age 17 years, range 8–18 years), all patients achieved satisfactory treatment outcomes, indicating that MAT can enhance knee joint function and alleviate pain in children and adolescents (59). A Recent systematic review identified three studies including 58 patients (mean age 15.9 years) (67). The lateral meniscus accounted for 82.8% of MAT procedures, and the principal indications were post-meniscectomy syndrome and prior discoid meniscus surgery. All included studies reported improvements in subjective clinical scores and level of sport after MAT. However, the overall complication rate was substantial (reported as 27.5%), and re-operations most commonly consisted of partial meniscectomy, removal of meniscal knots, treatment of chondral defects, and lysis of adhesions (67). Clinically relevant findings from the review include that 41.4% of patients required concomitant procedures (31% related to cartilage damage) and that 15.5% had a previous or concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; importantly, outcomes and graft survivorship were reported to be similar between isolated MAT and MAT combined with cartilage procedures (67). However, MAT remains a technically demanding procedure with a relatively high complication and reoperation rate, and the current evidence base is limited. Heterogeneity in graft preservation and construct composition was noted, and the authors emphasized the need for longer-term follow-up and higher-quality studies to determine durability, chondroprotective effects, and optimal patient selection in the pediatric population (67). Most patients treated with MAT return to high-level athletic sports, but participation in high-impact activities should be avoided (68).

Toanen et al. implanted a biodegradable polyurethane scaffold in 155 patients with symptomatic partial meniscus defects (101 medial and 54 lateral) (69). The follow-up results over 5 years indicated that 87.9% of the medial scaffolds and 86.9% of the lateral scaffolds continued to function normally, suggesting that the polyurethane meniscus implant can improve knee joint function in patientswith segmental meniscus defects and relieve pain.

Although allogeneic meniscus transplantation can alleviate pain symptoms, its long-term protective effect on cartilage remains unclear. Additionally, this treatment method has inherent drawbacks, including the risk of disease transmission, immune response, and a limited supply of suitable host tissue. Some scaffolds may also lose their functionality due to contraction, extrusion, and fracture. In summary, these concerns underscore the necessity of long-term follow-up. When assessing the meniscus, the entire knee joint should also be considered to comprehensively evaluate the treatment's effectiveness.

5.2.4 Meniscus regeneration therapy

In recent years, meniscus regeneration therapy has advanced rapidly, with tissue engineering emerging as a potential strategy for promoting meniscus regeneration following meniscectomy. This approach emphasizes the utilization of biological agents and biomimetic natural or synthetic materials, incorporating cells, bioactive factors (both chemical and biological), and injectable or implantable scaffolds to facilitate meniscus healing (70). Among these, growth factors for meniscus tissue engineering, biological materials for meniscus repair, and the reconstruction of the torn sections of the meniscus are critical components of this field.

Popescu et al. (71) injected platelet-rich plasma (PRP) into 30 patients with meniscus tears. The follow-up results after three months indicated that 76.7% of the patients experienced good recovery, significantly enhancing the clinical outcomes for children with meniscus tears. Baboolal et al. (72) mobilized synovial mesenchymal stem cells during surgery using a novel arthroscopic technique. The results demonstrated a substantial increase in the number of functional mesenchymal stem cells, thereby enhancing the repair potential of the joint. Furthermore, significant advancements havebeen made in the repair of avascular meniscus injuries using scaffolds loaded with mesenchymal stem cells and growth plate chondrocytes (73). Zhong et al. employed an injectable extracellular matrix (ECM) hydrogel to repair the meniscus in a rat model of meniscus injury-induced osteoarthritis, achieving favorable results in inhibiting arthritis (74).

Although many studies have demonstrated that implants possess a cartilage-protecting effect in vivo, they still face several shortcomings, including poor mechanical properties, significant inflammatory reactions, and rapid degradation of scaffold materials. Therefore, developing a meniscus regeneration scaffold with excellent cell compatibility, high mechanical strength, controllable degradation, and suitable wear resistance remains a considerable challenge. Currently, most of these studies are confined to animal experiments, and substantial progress is needed before achieving real clinical application.

6 Conclusion

With the growing popularity of physical exercise, the incidence of meniscus injuries in children is on the rise. There are significant differences in vascular distribution, injury mechanisms, repair methods, and prognoses of the meniscus between children and adults.

Vascular distribution: Children's menisci have arich blood supply. At birth, vascularization nearly covers the entire meniscus; by nine months, it covers 2/3 of the periphery, and the coverage area gradually decreases after the age of ten. In contrast, the blood supply to adult menisci is poor, with only 10%–30% of the outer part of the lateral meniscus receiving blood. The “red-red” zone has the best blood supply, the “red-white” zone is intermediate, and the “white-white” zone has the poorest blood supply.

Injury mechanism: Meniscus injuries in children often occur when the knee joint is suddenly bent during cutting and rotational movements, and they are closely associated with ACL injuries. In adults, these injuries typically result from a torsional force on the loaded knee joint or from contact that induces varus or valgus loading, which is a common complication of ACL injuries.

Repair Method: For children, meniscus suture repair should be prioritized whenever possible, with partial meniscectomy as the secondary option. In adult patients, meniscectomy remains the preferred treatment for complex, degenerative, and avascular meniscus tears, while tears located in the peripheral area of the meniscus should be considered for suture repair. If ACL reconstruction is performed concurrently, the range of the suture can be appropriately expanded.

Cure situation: Children's menisci possess a good blood supply and significant repair potential, resulting in a relatively high cure rate for ACL reconstruction and early surgery. In contrast, the goal of treating meniscus injuries in adults is often to alleviate symptoms such as pain and to slow the degenerative changes of the meniscus and knee joint. The long-term prognosis is poor, and most severe or complex tears are likely to progress to osteoarthritis in later stages.

Therefore, the objectives of treatment are to restore the natural biomechanics of the knee joint, alleviate discomfort symptoms, and slow the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). Among various repair surgeries, meniscus suture provides better treatment outcomes than partial meniscectomy; however, a personalized treatment plan should be tailored to the specific circumstances of each patient. In pediatric patients, the primary consideration should be the protection of the knee joint, allowing those with different meniscus tear locations and sizes to attempt meniscus injury repair. Meniscus repair is typically applicable only to adult meniscus tears with high healing potential, such as peripheral tears. Due to the high degree of vascularization and robust cellular metabolic activity in children's menisci, children possess a greater capacity for repair and recovery.

Importantly, and to emphasize the core clinical principle of this review, surgeons should always prioritize preservation and attempt repair of the meniscus in pediatric patients whenever technically and clinically feasible. With the continuous advancement of surgical techniques, modern instruments, and biological enhancement methods, the success rate of meniscus repair has significantly improved. However, effectively addressing meniscus repair failures or inadequate surgical resections has become a major challenge today. As disciplines such as tissue engineering, biomechanics, genetic engineering, and materials science continue to evolve, Mat and regeneration therapies offer renewed hope for clinically irreparable meniscus injuries.

Author contributions

YT: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. YS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. KW: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. DG: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. TH: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. TM: Conceptualization, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Restrepo R, Weisberg MD, Pevsner R, Swirsky S, Lee EY. Discoid meniscus in the pediatric population: emphasis on MR imaging signs of instability. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. (2019) 27(2):323–39. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2019.01.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Liechti DJ, Constantinescu DS, Ridley TJ, Chahla J, Mitchell JJ, Vap AR. Meniscal repair in pediatric populations: a systematic review of outcomes. Orthop J Sports Med. (2019) 7(5):2325967119843355 doi: 10.1177/2325967119843355

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Roy L de, Warnecke D, Hacker SP, Simon U, Durselen L, Ignatius A, Seitz AM. Meniscus injury and its surgical treatment does not increase initial whole knee joint friction. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. (2021) 9:779946. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.779946

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Magnusson K, Turkiewicz A, Snoeker B, Hughes V, Englund M. The heritability of doctor-diagnosed traumatic and degenerative meniscus tears. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. (2021) 29(7):979–85. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.03.005

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Chhadia AM, Inacio MC, Maletis GB, Csintalan RP, Davis BR, Funahashi TT. Are meniscus and cartilage injuries related to time to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Am J Sports Med. (2011) 39(9):1894–9. doi: 10.1177/0363546511410380

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Materne O, Chamari K, Farooq A, Weir A, Holmich P, Bahr R, et al. Injury incidence and burden in a youth elite football academy: a four-season prospective study of 551 players aged from under 9 to under 19 years. Br J Sports Med. (2021) 55(9):493–500. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102859

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Hampton M, Ali F, Nicolaou N, Ajuied A, G. Paediatric Meniscal Working. The management of isolated meniscal tears in skeletally immature children. An international expert consensus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. (2025) 33(4):1259–69. doi: 10.1002/ksa.12493

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Gee SM, Tennent DJ, Cameron KL, Posner MA. The burden of meniscus injury in young and physically active populations. Clin Sports Med. (2020) 39(1):13–27. doi: 10.1016/j.csm.2019.08.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Riganti A, Bigoni M, Pierpaoli E, Caliandro M, Piscitelli D, Nicolaou N, et al. Pediatric meniscal surgery in Italy: a 10-year epidemiological nationwide registry study. Heliyon. (2024) 10(15):e35353. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35353

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Brophy RH, Huston LJ, Briskin I, MOON Knee Group; Amendola A, Cox CL, Dunn WR, Flanigan DC, et al. Articular cartilage and meniscus predictors of patient-reported outcomes 10 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a multicenter cohort study. Am J Sports Med. (2021) 49(11):2878–88. doi: 10.1177/03635465211028247

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Shi B, Stinson Z, Nault ML, Brey J, Beck J. Meniscus repair in pediatric athletes. Clin Sports Med. (2022) 41(4):749–67. doi: 10.1016/j.csm.2022.05.010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Merkel DL. Youth sport: positive and negative impact on young athletes. Open Access J Sports Med. (2013) 4:151–60. doi: 10.2147/OAJSM.S33556

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Dale KM, Tenfelde A. Pediatric meniscal tears. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. (2024) 32(4):169–75. doi: 10.1097/JSA.0000000000000408

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Michel PA, Domnick CJ, Raschke MJ, Hoffmann A, Kittl C, Herbst E, et al. Age-related changes in the microvascular density of the human meniscus. Am J Sports Med. (2021) 49(13):3544–50. doi: 10.1177/03635465211039865

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Gicquel P. Knee ligament and meniscus injuries in children and teenagers. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. (2025) 111(1S):104073. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2024.104073

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Clark CR, Ogden JA. Development of the menisci of the human knee joint. Morphological changes and their potential role in childhood meniscal injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. (1983) 65(4):538–47. doi: 10.2106/00004623-198365040-00018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Arnoczky SP, Warren RF. Microvasculature of the human meniscus. Am J Sports Med. (1982) 10(2):90–5. doi: 10.1177/036354658201000205

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Kim W, Onodera T, Kondo E, Terkawi MA, Homan K, Hishimura R, et al. Which contributes to meniscal repair, the synovium or the Meniscus? An in vivo rabbit model study with the freeze-thaw method. Am J Sports Med. (2020) 48(6):1406–15. doi: 10.1177/0363546520906140

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Bryceland JK, Powell AJ, Nunn T. Knee menisci. Cartilage. (2017) 8(2):99–104. doi: 10.1177/1947603516654945

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Cinque ME, DePhillipo NN, Moatshe G, Chahla J, Kennedy MI, Dornan GJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of inside-out meniscal repair according to anatomic zone of the meniscal tear. Orthop J Sports Med. (2019) 7(7):2325967119860806. doi: 10.1177/2325967119860806

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Kim JY, Bin SI, Kim JM, Lee BS, Oh SM, Cho WJ. A novel arthroscopic classification of degenerative medial Meniscus posterior root tears based on the tear gap. Orthop J Sports Med. (2019) 7(3):2325967119827945. doi: 10.1177/2325967119827945

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. LaPrade CM, James EW, Cram TR, Feagin JA, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF. Meniscal root tears: a classification system based on tear morphology. Am J Sports Med. (2015) 43(2):363–9. doi: 10.1177/0363546514559684

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Wadhwa V, Omar H, Coyner K, Khazzam M, Robertson W, Chhabra A. ISAKOS classification of meniscal tears-illustration on 2D and 3D isotropic spin echo MR imaging. Eur J Radiol. (2016) 85(1):15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.10.022

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Cooper DE, Arnoczky SP, Warren RF. Meniscal repair. Clin Sports Med. (1991) 10(3):529–48. doi: 10.1016/S0278-5919(20)30608-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Ahlden M, Samuelsson K, Sernert N, Forssblad M, Karlsson J, Kartus J. The Swedish national anterior cruciate ligament register: a report on baseline variables and outcomes of surgery for almost 18,000 patients. Am J Sports Med. (2012) 40(10):2230–5. doi: 10.1177/0363546512457348

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Greis PE, Holmstrom MC, Bardana DD, Burks RT. Meniscal injury: II. Management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. (2002) 10(3):177–87. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200205000-00004

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Terzidis IP, Christodoulou A, Ploumis A, Givissis P, Natsis K, Koimtzis M. Meniscal tear characteristics in young athletes with a stable knee: arthroscopic evaluation. Am J Sports Med. (2006) 34(7):1170–5. doi: 10.1177/0363546506287939

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Lucas G, Accadbled F, Violas P, Sales de Gauzy J, Knorr J. Isolated meniscal injuries in paediatric patients: outcomes after arthroscopic repair. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. (2015) 101(2):173–7. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.12.006

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Geffroy L. Meniscal pathology in children and adolescents. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. (2021) 107(1S):102775. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.102775

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Tengrootenhuysen M, Meermans G, Pittoors K, van Riet R, Victor J. Long-term outcome after meniscal repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. (2011) 19(2):236–41. doi: 10.1007/s00167-010-1286-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Salata MJ, Gibbs AE, Sekiya JK. A systematic review of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing meniscectomy. Am J Sports Med. (2010) 38(9):1907–16. doi: 10.1177/0363546510370196

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. McDermott I. Meniscal tears, repairs and replacement: their relevance to osteoarthritis of the knee. Br J Sports Med. (2011) 45(4):292–7. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2010.081257

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Pogorelic Z, Puizina E, Jukic M, Mestrovic J, Pintaric I, Furlan D. Arthroscopic management of meniscal injuries in adolescents: outside-in suturing versus meniscal dart technique. Acta Clin Croat. (2020) 59(3):431–8. doi: 10.20471/acc.2020.59.03.06

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. MacDonald J, Rodenberg R, Sweeney E. Acute knee injuries in children and adolescents: a review. JAMA Pediatr. (2021) 175(6):624–30. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.6130

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Anderson KG, Carsen S, Stinson Z, Kushare I, Finlayson CJ, Nault ML, et al. Medial discoid meniscus in children: a multicenter case series of clinical features and operative results. Am J Sports Med. (2023) 51(5):1171–6. doi: 10.1177/03635465231159671

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Chambers HG, Chambers RC. The natural history of Meniscus tears. J Pediatr Orthop. (2019) 39(Issue 6, Supplement 1):S53–5. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000001386

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Kraus T, Heidari N, Svehlik M, Schneider F, Sperl M, Linhart W. Outcome of repaired unstable meniscal tears in children and adolescents. Acta Orthop. (2012) 83(3):261–6. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.693017

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Samora WP 3rd, Palmer R, Klingele KE. Meniscal pathology associated with acute anterior cruciate ligament tears in patients with open physes. J Pediatr Orthop. (2011) 31(3):272–6. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e31820fc6b8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Malatray M, Raux S, Peltier A, Pfirrmann C, Seil R, Chotel F. Ramp lesions in ACL deficient knees in children and adolescent population: a high prevalence confirmed in intercondylar and posteromedial exploration. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. (2018) 26(4):1074–9. doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4471-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Trunz LM, Morrison WB. MRI Of the knee Meniscus. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. (2022) 30(2):307–24. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2021.11.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Jacob G, Shimomura K, Krych AJ, Nakamura N. The meniscus tear: a review of stem cell therapies. Cells. (2019) 9(1):92. doi: 10.3390/cells9010092

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Westermann RW, Wright RW, Spindler KP, Huston LJ, Group MK, Wolf BR. Meniscal repair with concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: operative success and patient outcomes at 6-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. (2014) 42(9):2184–92. doi: 10.1177/0363546514536022

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Feeley BT, Lau BC. Biomechanics and clinical outcomes of partial meniscectomy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. (2018) 26(24):853–63. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00256

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Wells ME, Scanaliato JP, Dunn JC, Garcia EJ. Meniscal injuries: mechanism and classification. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. (2021) 29(3):154–7. doi: 10.1097/JSA.0000000000000311

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. McCarty EC, Marx RG, DeHaven KE. Meniscus repair: considerations in treatment and update of clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2002) 9(402):122–34. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200209000-00011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD. Arthroscopic repair of meniscal tears extending into the avascular zone in patients younger than twenty years of age. Am J Sports Med. (2002) 30(4):589–600. doi: 10.1177/03635465020300042001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Hagmeijer MH, Kennedy NI, Tagliero AJ, Levy BA, Stuart MJ, Saris DBF, et al. Long-term results after repair of isolated meniscal tears among patients aged 18 years and younger: an 18-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. (2019) 47(4):799–806. doi: 10.1177/0363546519826088

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Longo UG, Ciuffreda M, Candela V, Rizzello G, D'Andrea V, Mannering N, et al. Knee osteoarthritis after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: prevalence and progression of radiographic changes after 5 to 12 years compared with contralateral knee. J Knee Surg. (2019) 32(5):407–13. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1646926

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Manzione M, Pizzutillo PD, Peoples AB, Schweizer PA. Meniscectomy in children: a long-term follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. (1983) 11(3):111–5. doi: 10.1177/036354658301100301

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Vanderhave KL, Moravek JE, Sekiya JK, Wojtys Em. Meniscus tears in the young athlete: results of arthroscopic repair. J Pediatr Orthop. (2011) 31(5):496–500. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e31821ffb8d

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Carter CW, Kocher MS. Meniscus repair in children. Clin Sports Med. (2012) 31(1):135–54. doi: 10.1016/j.csm.2011.09.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Weiss CB, Lundberg M, Hamberg P, DeHaven KE, Gillquist J. Non-operative treatment of meniscal tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. (1989) 71(6):811–22. doi: 10.2106/00004623-198971060-00003

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Kocher MS, Klingele K, Rassman SO. Meniscal disorders: normal, discoid, and cysts. Orthop Clin North Am. (2003) 34(3):329–40. doi: 10.1016/s0030-5898(03)00008-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Felisaz PF, Alessandrino F, Perelli S, Zanon G, Benazzo F, Calliada F, et al. Role of MRI in predicting meniscal tear reparability. Skeletal Radiol. (2017) 46(10):1343–51. doi: 10.1007/s00256-017-2700-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Cabral J, Sinikumpu J. Clinical considerations of anatomy and magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric meniscus tear, with imaging-based treatment options. J Child Orthop. (2023) 17(1):63–9. doi: 10.1177/18632521231152270

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Xu C, Zhao J. A meta-analysis comparing meniscal repair with meniscectomy in the treatment of meniscal tears: the more meniscus, the better outcome? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. (2015) 23(1):164–70. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2528-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Milachowski KA, Weismeier K, Wirth CJ. Homologous meniscus transplantation. Experimental and clinical results. Int Orthop. (1989) 13(1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/BF00266715

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Grassi A, Macchiarola L, Lucidi GA, Coco V, Romandini I, Filardo G, et al. Long-term outcomes and survivorship of fresh-frozen meniscal allograft transplant with soft tissue fixation: minimum 10-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. (2020) 48(10):2360–9. doi: 10.1177/0363546520932923

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Middleton S, Asplin L, Stevenson C, Thompson P, Spalding T. Meniscal allograft transplantation in the paediatric population: early referral is justified. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. (2019) 27(6):1908–13. doi: 10.1007/s00167-019-05437-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Searle H, Asopa V, Coleman S, McDermott I. The results of meniscal allograft transplantation surgery: what is success? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. (2020) 21(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-3165-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Werner BC, Yang S, Looney AM, Gwathmey FW Jr. Trends in pediatric and adolescent anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. J Pediatr Orthop. (2016) 36(5):447–52. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000482

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Shieh A, Bastrom T, Roocroft J, Edmonds EW, Pennock AT. Meniscus tear patterns in relation to skeletal immaturity: children versus adolescents. Am J Sports Med. (2013) 41(12):2779–83. doi: 10.1177/0363546513504286

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Beaufils P, Pujol N. Meniscal repair: technique. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. (2018) 104(1S):S137–45. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.04.016

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Kramer DE, Kalish LA, Martin DJ, Yen YM, Kocher MS, Micheli LJ, et al. Heyworth: outcomes after the operative treatment of bucket-handle meniscal tears in children and adolescents. Orthop J Sports Med. (2019) 7(1):2325967118820305. doi: 10.1177/2325967118820305

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Nishino K, Hashimoto Y, Nishida Y, Terai S, Takahashi S, Yamasaki S, et al. Incidence and risk factors for meniscal cyst after meniscal repair. Arthroscopy. (2019) 35(4):1222–9. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.11.039

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Lehoczky G, Flumian C, Sales de Gauzy J, Accadbled F. Similar return-to-sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with or without meniscal repair in skeletally immature patients: a prospective, comparative cohort study. J Pediatr Orthop. (2025) 45(5):e473–9. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000002912

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Turati M, Boerci L, Piatti M, Russo L, Rigamonti L, Buonanotte F, et al. Meniscal allograft transplants in skeletally immature patients: a systematic review of indications and outcomes. Healthcare (Basel). (2023) 11(9):1312. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11091312

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Tuca M, Luderowski E, Rodeo S. Meniscal transplant in children. Curr Opin Pediatr. (2016) 28(1):47–54. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000306

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Toanen C, Dhollander A, Bulgheroni P, Filardo G, Zaffagnini S, Spalding T, et al. Polyurethane meniscal scaffold for the treatment of partial meniscal deficiency: 5-year follow-up outcomes: a European multicentric study. Am J Sports Med. (2020) 48(6):1347–55. doi: 10.1177/0363546520913528

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Shimomura K, Rothrauff BB, Hart DA, Hamamoto S, Kobayashi M, Yoshikawa H, et al. Enhanced repair of meniscal hoop structure injuries using an aligned electrospun nanofibrous scaffold combined with a mesenchymal stem cell-derived tissue engineered construct. Biomaterials. (2019) 192:346–54. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.11.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Popescu MB, Carp M, Tevanov I, Nahoi CA, Stratila MA, Haram OM, et al. Isolated meniscus tears in adolescent patients treated with platelet-rich plasma intra-articular injections: 3-month clinical outcome. Biomed Res Int. (2020) 2020:8282460. doi: 10.1155/2020/8282460

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Baboolal TG, Khalil-Khan A, Theodorides AA, Wall O, Jones E, McGonagle D. A novel arthroscopic technique for intraoperative mobilization of synovial mesenchymal stem cells. Am J Sports Med. (2018) 46(14):3532–40. doi: 10.1177/0363546518803757

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Ruprecht JC, Waanders TD, Rowland CR, Nishimuta JF, Glass KA, Stencel J, et al. Meniscus-derived matrix scaffolds promote the integrative repair of meniscal defects. Sci Rep. (2019) 9(1):8719. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44855-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Zhong G, Yao J, Huang X, Luo Y, Wang M, Han J, et al. Injectable ECM hydrogel for delivery of BMSCs enabled full-thickness meniscus repair in an orthotopic rat model. Bioact Mater. (2020) 5(4):871–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.06.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar