Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 17, 2026

Author Spotlight: Double Posteromedial Approach for Treating Posterior Cruciate Ligament Cysts
Published on: October 20, 2023
Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy or Conservative Treatment for Nonobstructive Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review
Victor A van de Graaf1, Nienke Wolterbeek2, Eduard L A R Mutsaerts1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Joint Research, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Purpose:
To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the outcome of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) with conservative treatment in adults with nonobstructive meniscal tears and to recommend a treatment of choice.
Methods:
We systematically searched the databases of MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane, the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database from inception to May 2, 2016. Two authors independently searched the literature and selected eligible studies. The meta-analyses used a random-effects model. The primary outcome was physical function, measured by knee-specific patient-reported outcomes. Secondary outcomes included knee pain, activity level, the progression of osteoarthritis, adverse events, general health, and quality of life.
Results:
We included 6 randomized controlled trials, with a total of 773 patients, of whom 378 were randomized to APM and 395 were randomized to the control treatment. After pooling the data of 5 studies, we found small significant differences in favor of the APM group for physical function at 2 to 3 months (mean difference [MD] = 3.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-5.93; P = .01; I(2) = 0% [Lysholm knee score]), and at 6 months (MD = 3.56; 95% CI = 0.24-6.88; P = .04; I(2) = 0% (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index); standardized MD = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.01-0.32; P = .03; I(2) = 0% [Lysholm knee score, KOOS, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index]). We also found small significant differences for pain at 6 months (MD = 3.56; 95% CI = 0.18-6.95; P = .04; I(2) = 0% [KOOS] and MD = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.28-0.83; P ≤ .0001; I(2) = 0% [visual analog scale and numeric rating scale]). We found no significant differences after 12 and 24 months.
Conclusions:
We found small, although statistically significant, favorable results of APM up to 6 months for physical function and pain. However, we found no differences at longer follow-up.
Level Of Evidence:
Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis of Level I studies.
More Related Videos
07:06Destabilization of the Medial Meniscus and Cartilage Scratch Murine Model of Accelerated Osteoarthritis
Published on: July 6, 2022
06:28Anterior Cruciate Ligament Transection and Synovial Fluid Lavage in a Rodent Model to Study Joint Inflammation and Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis
Published on: September 2, 2025