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
\