Increased knowledge of the long-term destructive consequences of meniscectomy has created a shift towards operative repair of isolated meniscus lesions. However, in the literature the results of isolated meniscal repair in athletes currently remain underreported. Our objective was to investigate the clinical and functional outcomes as well as survival and return to sport in patients who underwent meniscal repair after isolated meniscal tear, with a focus on athletes (both professional and recreational) in the study population. This retrospective study included 52 athletes who underwent knee surgery for isolated meniscal tear between 2014 and 2020. Patients with concomitant ligamentous and/or chondral injury were not included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 25.5 years (ranging from 12 to 57 years). The mean follow-up period of all patients was 33.3 months (ranging 10 to 80 months). The mean purpose of the study was to report the return to sport. The International Knee Documentation Committee rating (IKDC), Lysholm score, the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Tegner activity level were determined at the follow-up. Failure was defined as re-operation with meniscectomy or revision meniscal repair. In total, 44 out of 52 patients (85%) returned to their previous sports activities. At follow-up, the mean Lysholm score was 90, representing a good to excellent result. Assessment of KOOS (mean value 88.8) and IKDC (mean value 89) scores also showed good to excellent results. A mean level of Tegner scale was 6.2, indicating a relatively high level of sports participation. Failure was encountered in 8 out of 52 knees (15%). Therefore, isolated meniscal repair resulted in good to excellent knee function and most athletes can return to their previous level of sports participation.

Objective. The aim was to design accessible, simple, inexpensive protection for teeth and soft tissues during ETI, compare damage occurrence with and without protection, and investigate post-ETI orofacial pain symptoms. Materials and Methods. The selection procedure for adequate protection was carried out after which a reduced elastomer mouthguard was selected. Fifty patients were divided into 2 groups. In the first group, ETI was carried out using a mouthguard, while in the second group it was performed without it. The mouthguard was fabricated by anesthesiologists. After the ETI procedure, the patients and anesthesiologists were asked to complete a survey. Results. No difference in intubation severity and time required for intubation between the two groups was present. Seven patients from the non-mouthguard group suffered injuries during the ETI procedure. No injuries were present in the mouthguard group. In 92% of cases anesthesiologists agreed that mouthguards should be used during ETI. However, most of them (96% of cases) agree that the mouthguard should be used only when there is an increased risk of tooth loss and/or tooth damage. There was a significant ETI effect on the emergence of new orofacial pain cases. Conclusion. The mouthguard adequately protected dental and soft tissues and did not affect the work of the anesthesiologist. A significantly higher number of patients experiencing temporomandibular joint and masticatory muscles pain after surgery indicates that ETI might be a risk factor for orofacial pain.