Purpose: Meniscal tears are common and may impair knee function and biomechanics. This meta‐analysis compared meniscal repair versus resection in patients with symptomatic meniscal tears in terms of patient‐reported outcomes measures (PROMs), joint width, surgical failure, and rate of progression to osteoarthritis (OA) at conventional radiography.Methods: This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In August 2023, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. Two reviewers independently performed the analysis and a methodological quality assessment of the included studies. All the clinical investigations which compared repair versus resection of meniscal tears were accessed.Results: Data from 20 studies (31,783 patients) were collected. The mean BMI was 28.28 ± 3.2 kg/m², and the mean age was 37.6 ± 14.0 years. The mean time elapsed from injury to surgery was 12.1 ± 10.2 months and the mean medial joint width was 4.9 ± 0.8 mm. Between studies comparability at baseline was found in age, women, BMI, time from injury to surgery and length of the follow‐up, PROMs, medial joint width, and stage of OA. The resection group demonstrated a greater Lysholm score (P = 0.02). No difference was found in the International Knee Documentation Committee (P = 0.2). Nine studies reported data on the rate of failures at a mean of 63.00 ± 24.7 months. No difference was found between the two groups in terms of persistent meniscal symptoms (P = 0.8). Six studies reported data on the rate of progression to total knee arthroplasty at a mean of 48.0 ± 14.7 months follow‐up. The repair group evidenced a lower rate of progression to knee arthroplasty (P = 0.0001). Six studies reported data on the rate of advanced knee OA at a mean of 48.0 ± 14.7 months of follow‐up. The repair group evidenced a lower rate of advanced knee OA (P = 0.0001). No difference was found in the mean joint space width (P = 0.09).Conclusion: Meniscal repair is associated with a lower progression to knee osteoarthritis at approximately six years of follow‐up compared to partial meniscectomy. No difference in PROMs, medial joint width, and failures were evidenced.Level of evidence: Level III, meta‐analysis.

Introduction: Lower back pain (LBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders in modern society, with a lifetime incidence of up to 90%. According to most national and international guidelines, educational interventions play a central role in the multimodal treatment of LBP. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the impact of educational interventions on pain and disability in patients with LBP undergoing physiotherapy compared to patients without educational interventions undergoing physiotherapy. Methods: In October 2024, a comprehensive computer-aided search was performed to assess the online databases PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. The search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria with an established PICOTD algorithm. Two authors independently performed the data extraction and risk of bias evaluation. The primary outcome measures extracted were a pain score (VAS or NRS) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ). Results: Data from 8152 patients were retrieved. The mean length of follow-up was 6.2 ± 3.9 months, the mean length of symptom duration was 66.7 ± 51.6 months, and the mean age of the patients was 46.7 ± 9.2 years. Compared to physiotherapy alone, additional education did not reduce pain (P = 0.4) or disability according to the RMQ (P = 0.9). Conclusion: The addition of education did not impact pain and disability in patients undergoing physiotherapy for chronic non-specific LPB. Level of evidence: Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.