At the present time, there is a paucity of literature regarding medial meniscal posterior root repair and outcomes. This review seeks to examine the currently available data to further elucidate the clinical risks and benefits and any associated risks of medial meniscal posterior root repair. A systematic literature search was performed up to July 2018 in the databases of Medline via PubMed, EBSCOhost, and EMBASE. The results were reviewed independently by two authors and appropriate articles were reviewed and eligibility determined based on established criteria. The best-evidence synthesis was subsequently used. Thirteen studies (324 patients) were included in this review with a mean patient age of 54 years. There were no control studies with nonoperative treatment of medial meniscal posterior root tears. All studies included a minimum of 10 patients in a case series or case-control manner. Of patients treated with medial meniscal posterior root repair, 62.43% demonstrated complete healing on follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or second-look arthroscopy. Among them, 32.60% demonstrated incomplete healing, loosening of the construct, or excessive scar tissues formation. Also, 4.97% demonstrated complete failure or retearing of the construction. At a mean follow-up period of 33 months, patients demonstrated a mean improvement in Lysholm's score of 30.5 (p < 0.00001), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score of 31.9 (p < 0.00001), and HSS Knee Score of 38.3 (p < .00001). Surgical repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears appears to result in highly satisfying subjective outcomes. Patients included in this review meet criteria for both statistically and clinically significant improvement, based on published guidelines for minimal clinically important difference. Despite this, however, postoperative MRI and second-look arthroscopy demonstrate a relatively high rate of incomplete healing (32.60%) or retearing and failure of the construct (4.97%). More highly powered studies are required to confirm these findings.

Introduction: Previous studies have demonstrated that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and obesity independently increase the risk for development of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, it is unknown whether weight changes in an OSA cohort also increase the risk of AF. Methods: This was a case control study from a single tertiary institution analyzing patients with a confirmed OSA diagnosis from 2013-2020. Patients with missing data on any of the key variables were excluded from these analyses. The covariates included smoking history, hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and coronary artery disease. Patients’ weight at the time of AF diagnosis by electrocardiogram (ECG) was compared to the weight documented one year earlier. Weight at the time of the ECG closest to the sleep study date was compared to the weight one year prior for the control group. ​​Multivariate logistic regression analysis to examine the association between AF cases (versus controls) and weight percent change greater than 5%. Results: Among the 182 patients included in the analysis, the incidence of AF was 32.4% and the median weight change was -1.32± 11.69 lb (Table 1). About 36% of those diagnosed with AF had weight changes (gain or loss) above 5% compared to 23% in the control group (p = 0.07). The average weight change for those with diagnosed AF compared to individuals without AF was -2.5 ±11.8 lb vs. -0.76 ± 11.6 lb (p=0.19). The change in the adjusted odds of AF diagnosis among those with more than 5% weight gain or loss was 2.27 (95% CI =1.01, 5.09) compared to those with less or no weight change. Conclusions: Among individuals with OSA, those who exhibited weight changes greater than 5% over a one year period have increased odds for developing AF. Further large-scale studies need to be undertaken to understand the link between intentional versus unintentional weight loss.