Skip to main content

Table 1 Prognostic factors for the treatment outcomes of the DLM identified using correlation or multivariate logistic regression analysis

From: Discoid lateral meniscus: importance, diagnosis, and treatment

Author (year)

No. of knees

Mean F/U (years)

Dependent variables

Independent variables

Odds ratio (95% CI)

P value

Ahn et al. (2015) [2]

48

10.1

Degenerative changes

Subtotal meniscectomy (vs. partial meniscectomy)

13.56 (1.26–145.92)

0.028

Cho et al. (2019) [16]

355

–

ICRS grades 2–4 of LFC

Horizontal tear

0.02 (0–0.16)

0.009

Age (per year increase)

1.04 (1.03–1.06)

<  0.001

ICRS grades 2–4 of LTP

Horizontal tear

0.26 (0.13–0.49)

<  0.001

Age (per year increase)

1.03 (1.02–1.05)

<  0.001

Kim et al. (2019a, b) [37]

48

1.1

Reduction of remaining meniscal width

Preoperative meniscal shift

12.0 (1.59–90.74)

0.016

Lee et al. (2018) [45]

73

10

Clinical outcomes (Lysholm)

Duration of symptoms prior to surgery

−0.129a

0.003

Last follow-up FTA

1.362a

0.045

Sabbag et al. (2019) [59]

59

>  2

Re-tear

Age (per year increase)

0.96 (0.93–0.99)b

0.01

Open growth plates (vs closed)

3.19 (1.15–8.88)b

0.03

Degenerative changes

Age (per year increase)

1.02 (1.00–1.05)

0.046

BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (vs. < 30)

3.75 (1.43–9.84)

<  0.01

Yoo et al. (2015) [71]

48

10.1

Clinical outcomes (Lysholm)

Age < 10 years (vs, ≥10)

2.37 (1.1–5.1)

0.032

  1. BMI body mass index, CI confidence interval, DLM discoid lateral meniscus, FTA femorotibial angle, F/U follow-up, ICRS International Cartilage Repair Society, LFC lateral femoral condyle, LTP lateral tibial plateau
  2. aUnstandardized coefficients of ß
  3. bHazard ratio