↓ Skip to main content

Surgical management of degenerative meniscus lesions: the 2016 ESSKA meniscus consensus

Overview of attention for article published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
49 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
200 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
Title
Surgical management of degenerative meniscus lesions: the 2016 ESSKA meniscus consensus
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00167-016-4407-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ph Beaufils, R. Becker, S. Kopf, M. Englund, R. Verdonk, M. Ollivier, R. Seil

Abstract

A degenerative meniscus lesion is a slowly developing process typically involving a horizontal cleavage in a middle-aged or older person. When the knee is symptomatic, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy has been practised for a long time with many case series reporting improved patient outcomes. Since 2002, several randomised clinical trials demonstrated no additional benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared to non-operative treatment, sham surgery or sham arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. These results introduced controversy in the medical community and made clinical decision-making challenging in the daily clinical practice. To facilitate the clinical decision-making process, a consensus was developed. This initiative was endorsed by ESSKA. A degenerative meniscus lesion was defined as a lesion occurring without any history of significant acute trauma in a patient older than 35 years. Congenital lesions, traumatic meniscus tears and degenerative lesions occurring in young patients, especially in athletes, were excluded. The project followed the so-called formal consensus process, involving a steering group, a rating group and a peer-review group. A total of 84 surgeons and scientists from 22 European countries were included in the process. Twenty questions, their associated answers and an algorithm based on extensive literature review and clinical expertise, were proposed. Each question and answer set was graded according to the scientific level of the corresponding literature. The main finding was that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy should not be proposed as a first line of treatment for degenerative meniscus lesions. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy should only be considered after a proper standardised clinical and radiological evaluation and when the response to non-operative management has not been satisfactory. Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee is typically not indicated in the first-line work-up, but knee radiography should be used as an imaging tool to support a diagnosis of osteoarthritis or to detect certain rare pathologies, such as tumours or fractures of the knee. The present work offers a clear framework for the management of degenerative meniscus lesions, with the aim to balance information extracted from the scientific evidence and clinical expertise. Because of biases and weaknesses of the current literature and lack of definition of important criteria such as mechanical symptoms, it cannot be considered as an exact treatment algorithm. It summarises the results of the "ESSKA Meniscus Consensus Project" ( http://www.esska.org/education/projects ) and is the first official European consensus on this topic. The consensus may be updated and refined as more high-quality evidence emerges. I.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 262 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Student > Master 28 11%
Researcher 24 9%
Other 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Other 50 19%
Unknown 86 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Computer Science 3 1%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 103 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2022.
All research outputs
#969,785
of 25,168,110 outputs
Outputs from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#58
of 2,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,541
of 312,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#1
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,168,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.