Meniscal tears and physiotherapy – Knowledge

1. Why this article?

Two people receive the same finding on the same day: «tear in the medial meniscus». One is 24 and twisted her knee playing football; it has been catching on extension ever since. The other is 58, cannot recall any particular event, and has had increasing pain on the inner side of the knee for six months.

On the scan the two look similar. They need entirely different treatment. In the young knee the point is to save the meniscus – and for that, surgery is sometimes the right route. In the older knee the tear is usually not the cause of the symptoms but a companion sign of wear, and surgery demonstrably adds nothing.

This is possibly the best-studied question in the whole of orthopaedics. There are trials in which half the participants had a real operation and the other half a sham operation – anaesthetic, skin incisions, instruments in the joint, but nothing cut away [9]. Nobody knew who had received what, the assessors included. Such trials are rare and demanding, and their result is unambiguous.

Even so, meniscal surgery remains one of the most common orthopaedic procedures worldwide [24]. Between what the studies show and what happens, there is a gap.

This article explains what the meniscus does, why a tear on a scan says little about the symptoms, what conservative – that is, non-surgical – treatment actually involves, when surgery is nevertheless the right route, and what the aftercare looks like: different after a partial removal than after a repair. Every statement is referenced; the numbers in square brackets point to the reference list at the end.

One note in advance: this article does not replace individual advice. After an operation, the operating clinic sets the aftercare protocol – it depends on where exactly the repair was made and how well it holds. What has been laid down there takes precedence over everything described here.

2. What the meniscus is – and what it does

In the knee, two bones meet that fit each other badly: the thigh bone ends in two rounded condyles, the top of the shin bone is almost flat. A ball on a plate. The two menisci – one on the inner, one on the outer side – are crescent-shaped discs of fibrocartilage that fill this gap. In cross-section they are wedge-shaped: thick at the outer edge, tapering towards the centre of the joint.

From this come their tasks [2], [3]:

• Spreading load. This is the most important one. The meniscus considerably enlarges the area over which the load is distributed. Take it away and the same load meets far less cartilage – the pressure per square centimetre rises accordingly.
• Absorbing shock. The tissue gives under load and springs back.
• Guiding and stabilising. The meniscus acts like a wedge that limits the gliding of the joint surfaces.
• Lubricating and feeding. It spreads the joint fluid from which the cartilage takes its nourishment.

So that the wedge holds, the meniscus is anchored to the shin bone at the front and the back – these anchors are called roots. They work like the guy ropes of a tent: if the rope tears, the whole thing collapses even though the canvas is intact. We return to this point in section 8.3, because in practice it is often missed.

2.1 Why the position of the tear decides everything

The meniscus has a blood supply only at its outer rim. Specialists speak of three zones [2]:

• Red zone – the outer third, well supplied with blood. A tear here can heal, whether repaired surgically or left alone.
• Red-white zone – the middle third, sparsely supplied. Healing is possible but uncertain.
• White zone – the inner third, with no blood supply at all. A tear here does not heal. It is either left in peace or the loose piece is removed.

This map explains nearly every decision in the sections that follow. Whether a repair is possible, whether it has a prospect of holding, how long the aftercare lasts – all of that depends less on how large a tear is than on where it sits. In a tear in the inner third there is nothing to heal; patience is not a strategy there.

3. Two entirely different tears

A meniscal tear is not one diagnosis but two. They share a name and little else.

3.1 The traumatic tear

Healthy tissue tears under sufficient force: twisting on the loaded leg, a deep squat with rotation, a collision. That is a traumatic tear. Those affected are usually under forty, often in sport. Typically there is a clear moment – people know which movement did it – followed by swelling within hours to a day.

The tear patterns have vivid names: longitudinal tear (along the fibres, often at the outer rim – the one that heals best), bucket-handle tear (a long longitudinal tear in which the detached piece can flip into the joint like the handle of a bucket), radial tear (across the fibres, interrupting the tension ring) and flap tear (a tongue of tissue that can catch).

Here, preserving the meniscus is the declared aim. The European society ESSKA puts it explicitly in its consensus on traumatic tears: preservation comes first [29].

3.2 The degenerative tear

Tissue that loses water content and elasticity over decades can also tear without any particular event. That is a degenerative tear. ESSKA defines it as a tear occurring without any history of significant trauma in a person older than 35 [8]. Typically it starts gradually over weeks, and the most common pattern is the horizontal cleavage tear – the meniscus splits into an upper and a lower half, like a book falling open.

The decisive point: such a tear is rarely an event in its own right. It is usually part of beginning osteoarthritis of the knee – often the first visible sign of it. More on that connection in our article on osteoarthritis.

3.3 Why this distinction changes everything

The two types call for different questions:

• For the traumatic tear the question is: Can this meniscus be saved – and if so, how?
• For the degenerative tear it is: Is this tear causing the symptoms at all?

The second question sounds odd – the tear is there and the knee does hurt. The next section shows why it is justified nonetheless.

4. What scans and tests say – and what they do not

4.1 Tears in people without symptoms

The founding study on this comes from the Framingham cohort in the United States. Almost a thousand people between 50 and 90, drawn from the population and not selected for knee problems, had an MRI scan of the right knee [4]. The result:

• A meniscal tear was found in 19 per cent of women aged 50 to 59 – and in 56 per cent of men aged 70 to 90.
• 61 per cent of all people with a tear on the scan had had no pain, aching or stiffness in that knee during the previous month.
• Among people with radiographic osteoarthritis, a tear was present in 63 per cent of those with knee pain – and in 60 per cent of those without.

That last figure is the most telling. A tear was almost exactly as common in the painful as in the pain-free. A finding that occurs equally often in both groups cannot explain the difference between them.

A more recent study using modern high-resolution scanners examined 230 knees of 115 people without symptoms, median age 44. In 97 per cent of the knees there was at least one abnormality; 30 per cent had a meniscal tear, most often a horizontal one (23 per cent) [5]. Even bucket-handle tears appeared – in knees that did not hurt.

This does not make scans worthless. It means: a tear on the scan does not prove that it is the cause of the symptoms. It has to fit the story and the examination.

4.2 The manual tests in the examination

The examination includes several manual tests intended to detect a meniscal tear – McMurray (flexing and rotating the knee), tenderness along the joint line, the Thessaly test (rotating on the slightly flexed standing leg). Two terms help in reading the figures: sensitivity means how many of those actually affected a test picks up; specificity, how reliably it identifies healthy knees as healthy.

A synthesis of nine studies with 1234 people found: McMurray has a sensitivity of 61 per cent and a specificity of 84 per cent, joint line tenderness 83 and 83 per cent, the Thessaly test 75 and 87 per cent – with consistently poor methodological quality in the underlying studies [6]. A large Dutch study of 593 people who subsequently underwent arthroscopy found even weaker values for the Thessaly test: sensitivity 64 per cent, specificity 53 per cent. The authors' conclusion: the test is not useful for settling the question «tear or no tear» [7].

We still perform these tests – but not to prove a tear. They show which movements and which loads provoke symptoms, and that is exactly what we need for treatment. The diagnosis «meniscal tear» is made by none of these manoeuvres.

4.3 When a scan is needed

For the degenerative tear ESSKA states: MRI is typically not indicated in the first-line work-up. A plain radiograph is sensible – not to see the meniscus (it is no good for that) but to identify osteoarthritis or to rule out rarer causes such as a fracture or a tumour [8]. For the traumatic tear, ESSKA recommends MRI when surgery is being considered anyway, in order to capture accompanying injuries [29].

In practice: if your knee has been hurting more and more over weeks without any injury, an MRI at the outset is usually dispensable. If it was twisted in a clear event, if it locks or feels unstable, it is sensible.

5. The degenerative tear: the clearest evidence in orthopaedics

No other orthopaedic operation has been examined in as many high-quality trials as arthroscopic partial meniscectomy – the removal of the torn part of the meniscus through a keyhole procedure. We go through them in order, because the picture only convinces as a whole.

5.1 Surgery versus sham surgery

The Finnish FIDELITY trial studied 146 adults aged 35 to 65, all with symptoms and with a degenerative tear of the medial meniscus confirmed both on MRI and at arthroscopy, but without signs of osteoarthritis [9]. By random allocation, one half received the real partial removal, the other a sham operation: the same preparation, the same skin incisions, the same sounds and movements in the operating theatre, the same duration – but nothing was removed. Neither the participants nor the later assessors knew who belonged to which group.

At twelve months no meaningful difference could be found between the groups – neither in symptoms nor in function. At two years, likewise none [10]. Both groups were markedly better than before. That improvement clearly did not come from removing the piece of meniscus.

At five years they looked again, this time with radiographs and MRI as well. In symptoms the two groups remained level. In joint structure a difference appeared, and not in favour of the operated: they somewhat more often showed an increase in radiographic signs of osteoarthritis [11], and on MRI new bone spurs (osteophytes – bony outgrowths at the joint margin, a sign of osteoarthritis) were almost three times as frequent [26]. These are imaging findings, not symptoms, and the numbers are small. But they point the same way: the procedure does not help and if anything harms the joint.

5.2 Surgery versus exercise

The second question is more practical: if the operation is no better than nothing – is it better than physiotherapy? Four large trials have tested that.

METEOR (USA, 351 people aged 45 and over with a meniscal tear and osteoarthritis) compared surgery plus physiotherapy with physiotherapy alone. At six months no meaningful difference in function was measurable [12]. About 30 per cent of the physiotherapy group opted for surgery later on. At five years the pain scores of both groups were practically identical: from around 46 points at the start to around 18 at two years, stable thereafter. 7.1 per cent of all participants received a knee replacement within five years – analysed by the treatment actually received, that risk was raised in the operated group [13].

Kise (Norway, 140 people, mean age just under 50, 96 per cent without definite radiographic osteoarthritis) compared twelve weeks of supervised exercise with surgery – each on its own, not combined. The difference at two years was 0.9 points on a 100-point scale (confidence interval −4.3 to 6.1) and therefore of no importance. At three months the exercise group had the stronger thigh muscles. 19 per cent of the exercise group crossed over to surgery – with no additional benefit [14].

ESCAPE (Netherlands, 321 people aged 45 to 70) compared surgery with 16 sessions of physiotherapy. This trial tested for non-inferiority – the question was not «is physiotherapy better?» but «is it not substantially worse?». It was not worse, neither at two [15] nor at five years. At five years both groups had improved markedly (29.6 versus 25.1 points), the difference lay well within the pre-set threshold, and osteoarthritis progressed at the same rate in both groups. The authors' conclusion: physiotherapy should be the preferred treatment [16].

A review of nine trials expressed the effect of surgery on pain in a vivid figure: it corresponds to 2.4 millimetres on a 100-millimetre pain scale – an advantage you have to measure with a ruler, and one that disappears entirely after one to two years [18]. The Cochrane synthesis of 2022 reaches the same conclusion for the comparison with sham surgery, with high certainty of evidence: little or no difference in pain and function [19].

5.3 And in younger people?

All the trials named so far concerned people aged 35 or 45 and over. The Danish DREAM trial asked the question in young adults for the first time: 121 people aged 18 to 40 with an MRI-verified meniscal tear for which surgery was planned. Early surgery (partial removal or repair) was compared with twelve weeks of supervised exercise and education – with the option of surgery later if needed [17].

At one year early surgery was not superior (difference 5.4 points, confidence interval −0.7 to 11.4). Both groups improved meaningfully. About one in four in the exercise group had surgery during the year after all.

A word of caution in reading this: the trial does not say that young people with a meniscal tear should never be operated on. It says that for most of them it is reasonable to start with exercise and keep surgery open – and that the time is not wasted. Locked knees and certain tear patterns are excluded from this (section 8).

5.4 «But my knee catches»

The commonest objection to all these trials is: that may apply to a dull ache, but if the knee catches or locks, surely the loose piece has to go.

That too has been examined, in the same FIDELITY participants. Before surgery, 46 per cent of those later truly operated and 49 per cent of the sham-operated reported catching or occasional locking. At the follow-ups the figures were 49 and 43 per cent respectively – no difference between the groups. Even among those who had such symptoms beforehand, removing the piece of meniscus brought nothing [23].

The explanation is uncomfortable but not far-fetched: what people describe as «catching» usually does not come from the meniscus at all. A knee that briefly falters because the thigh muscle does not trust it feels very similar.

This must be clearly distinguished from true locking – when the knee mechanically will not straighten because something is lodged in the way. That is a different matter and needs prompt assessment (section 8.1).

5.5 What the professional bodies made of it

• ESSKA (Europe, 2016): partial meniscectomy should not be offered as first-line treatment for a degenerative tear. It comes into question only after proper assessment and when non-surgical management has not worked satisfactorily [8].
• BMJ guideline panel (international, 2017): a strong recommendation against arthroscopy in nearly all people with degenerative knee disease [20].
• British society BASK (2019): the same picture, with the addition that non-surgical treatment should have taken place before any meniscal surgery [21].
• Switzerland: the Top-5 list for orthopaedics and traumatology in the «smarter medicine» programme puts first: no arthroscopic debridement as first-line treatment for knee osteoarthritis. Conservative treatment – medication or physiotherapy – is first choice; arthroscopy may help when the leading symptom is true locking caused by a meniscal flap or a loose body [22].

Four independent bodies, one message. In medicine that is not a given.

6. Why cutting it out is not harmless

Against an ineffective treatment one might object that at least it does no harm. For partial meniscectomy that is not quite true.

6.1 The short-term risks

An analysis of every such procedure in England over twenty years – almost 700 000 analysable operations – found a serious complication within 90 days in 0.317 per cent. Among them 546 pulmonary embolisms (0.078 per cent) and 944 infections that required further surgery (0.135 per cent) [24].

These are small numbers, and the authors say so. But they also turn the calculation around: for every 1390 arthroscopies not performed, one pulmonary embolism would be prevented; for every 749, one joint infection. In a procedure carried out millions of times, that adds up to a considerable absolute number of avoidable harms – avoidable because the procedure achieves nothing in degenerative tears. An earlier review additionally reported just over four symptomatic deep vein thromboses per 1000 procedures [18].

6.2 The long-term question

More important than the rare immediate complications is what happens to the joint afterwards. The meniscus spreads load; removing part of it permanently reduces the load-bearing area.

In an American long-term cohort of people with knee osteoarthritis, the probability of later receiving a knee replacement was about three times higher after partial meniscectomy than in comparable people without that procedure (18.8 versus 11.1 per cent) [25].

Observational studies of this kind have a well-known weakness: those who get operated on probably have the worse knee to begin with. So the comparison does not reliably show what the operation does. Taken together with the imaging findings from the sham-surgery trial [11], [26], however, a consistent picture emerges – and certainly no hint that partial removal protects the joint.

The practical conclusion: meniscal tissue cannot be replaced. What is removed stays removed. That is why restraint pays – and why repair, wherever it is possible, is preferable to removal (section 9).

7. Conservative treatment: what actually happens

«Conservative» sounds like waiting. The opposite is meant. The programmes that did so well in the trials were demanding: in Kise's trial twelve weeks with two to three supervised sessions a week [14], in ESCAPE 16 sessions [15], in DREAM twelve weeks of exercise and education [17]. Not one of these programmes consisted of massage and heat.

7.1 The first weeks: settling the irritation

A knee that is swollen and warm is hard to strengthen – the swelling inhibits the thigh muscle and the joint will not straighten fully. So the first steps are:

• Adjust the load, do not stop it. Less of what irritates the knee (deep squats, twisting under load, long descents of stairs), but keep walking and moving.
• Secure full extension. A knee that will not straighten completely changes the way you walk and loads the other side. This is a topic from day one.
• Switch the thigh back on. Deliberate contraction of the extensor muscle with the leg straight, several times a day. This is not yet strength training but restoring the connection to the muscle.
• Cold, if it helps. Against the irritation, not as a treatment of the tear.

This phase rarely lasts longer than two to three weeks. Anyone who is still only icing and resting after four weeks has got stuck.

7.2 Strength is the core

The meniscus itself cannot be trained – it is tissue with no muscular component. What is trained is everything that unloads it: the thigh extensor at the front (quadriceps), the flexors at the back, the buttock and hip muscles, and the calf. A knee whose muscles absorb the load transmits less of it to the joint cartilage.

That this works measurably is shown particularly neatly by the Norwegian trial: at three months the exercise group had markedly more thigh strength and performed better on functional tests than the operated group [14], [28]. On pain it was a draw – on strength it was not.

A workable framework for dosing:

• Two to three sessions a week, for at least three months. Reckon on a quarter of a year, not on a fortnight.
• Choose a resistance that allows 8 to 12 clean repetitions – one repetition being one complete movement out and back, for instance standing up from a chair and sitting down again. At the end there should still be the feeling that two to four more would have been possible. If you suddenly manage 15 with ease, the load goes up.
• Progression is the active ingredient. A programme that has run unchanged for six months maintains the state you are in – it no longer improves it.
• Train both legs, not only the affected one.

How strength training is built up and what really matters in it is set out at length in our article on strength training.

7.3 Movement patterns and balance

Beyond raw strength, it matters how the leg takes up the load. Many people with knee problems let the knee fall inwards when standing up, climbing stairs or landing, and shift their weight onto the other leg – often without noticing. That habit persists even when the pain subsides.

It is trained with single-leg exercises, balance tasks, controlled landings and movements with a rotational component – each at a level of difficulty that can still be managed cleanly. This is the second building block of the programmes used in the trials, and it is explicitly provided for in the physiotherapy guideline on meniscal and cartilage lesions [1].

7.4 How much pain is allowed during exercise?

An established approach with joint problems: allow pain during the exercise up to about 5 out of 10, provided it settles back to the usual level within 24 hours. If the knee is thicker and clearly stiffer the next day, the load was too high.

That is a guide, not a law of nature – discuss it with your therapist. What matters most is what it does not mean: «the more pain the better» is wrong.

7.5 How to tell whether it is working

Pain is a poor early indicator – it fluctuates. More informative are things that can be counted:

• How many times can you stand up from a chair in 30 seconds?
• How many steps do you climb in one go without needing the handrail?
• How long can you stand securely on the affected leg?
• How far do you walk before the knee makes itself felt?

These values are measured at the start and again after four to six weeks. If they improve, the programme is right – even if the pain is still there. If nothing has improved after eight to twelve weeks of regular training, the situation needs reassessing. That is precisely the point at which the guidelines first allow the question of surgery to be raised [8].

8. When surgery is nevertheless the right route

It does not follow from the trials that meniscal operations are superfluous. It follows that in the commonest case – the degenerative tear in a person over 40 – they do not help. There are situations in which surgery is right.

8.1 True locking

When a detached piece of meniscus – classically a flipped bucket handle – is trapped inside the joint, the knee mechanically will not fully straighten. Not «it hurts to straighten it», but: it does not go, not even when someone gently assists. That is a case for prompt orthopaedic assessment; here surgery is performed, and preferably in such a way that the bucket handle is repaired rather than removed [29]. The Swiss Top-5 list names this exception explicitly as well [22].

The difference from the «catching» in section 5.4 matters: there it is a sensation, here a demonstrable mechanical block.

8.2 The traumatic tear in a young, active person

A longitudinal tear at the well-perfused outer rim of a 25-year-old knee has a good chance of healing – if it is repaired. That chance expires with time; an old, frayed tear can no longer be brought together sensibly. ESSKA regards preservation as the overriding aim here and recommends repair for repairable traumatic tears [29]. That the scientific basis for this is thinner than for degenerative tears is stated openly in the same paper: of 27 questions, only one could be answered with a high level of scientific support.

The DREAM trial qualifies this somewhat: in young adults too, early surgery was on average no better than exercise with the option of operating later [17]. Together the two give a sensible stance: no hurry in unclear cases, but no delay when there is a readily repairable tear.

8.3 The root tear – the special case that is often missed

If the anchoring of the meniscus at the shin bone (the «root») tears off, the meniscus loses its tension and slides sideways out of the joint under load. Specialists call this extrusion. The meniscus is then still present but without function – biomechanically this corresponds roughly to removing it altogether [30].

That is why this tear must be taken seriously. A follow-up over at least five years compared partial removal (20 people) with reattachment (37 people) for posterior root tears of the medial meniscus. Both groups improved at first, but those with a reattachment had the better scores at the end, less progression of osteoarthritis and less narrowing of the joint space. The most striking difference: 35 per cent of those who had partial removal had a knee replacement within five years – in the repair group, nobody [31].

The study is small and not randomised; the two groups may have differed from the outset. But the direction fits the biomechanics. A root tear belongs in orthopaedic assessment promptly. It often occurs without any dramatic event – sometimes rising from a squat is enough – causes a sudden, sharp pain at the back of the inner side of the knee, and is easily dismissed as a «pulled muscle».

9. Repair or partial removal – the decisive difference

If surgery is done, there are essentially two routes:

• Partial removal (partial meniscectomy): the torn, loose piece is trimmed away. The procedure is short, weight-bearing afterwards is unrestricted, symptoms settle quickly. The price: permanently less meniscus.
• Repair (meniscal refixation): the torn edges are brought together with sutures or small anchors so that they can heal. The meniscus is preserved. The price: a markedly longer and stricter aftercare – and a repair can fail.

What speaks for repair. A Swedish register analysis followed 2487 people aged 16 to 45 after a traumatic meniscal tear for up to 17 years. The proportion who consulted a doctor for knee osteoarthritis was 17 per cent after partial removal, 10 per cent after repair and 2.3 per cent in the general population [27]. So repair does better – but even after a repair the risk is at least twice that of people without a meniscal injury. Here too a caveat applies: what gets repaired is what is repairable, and those tend to be the more favourable tears.

What speaks against repair. It does not always hold. A synthesis of 13 studies with at least five years of follow-up found a failure rate of 23 per cent – so close to one repair in four, counted as re-operation or persisting symptoms [32]. In athletes a separate review put it at 21 per cent [35]. When a repair fails, partial removal usually follows after all.

That is the honest trade-off: roughly one repair in four does not hold – and the three that do save a person meniscal tissue for the next fifty years. Which route is right in the individual case is decided by the operating surgeon on the basis of tear pattern, position, age and tissue quality. As a patient you may ask about it – the question «can my tear be repaired?» is legitimate and is not always answered spontaneously.

10. After partial removal: the aftercare

After a partial meniscectomy there is nothing to protect – nothing was joined together that has to grow back. Weight-bearing and range of motion are therefore usually free from the outset, as symptoms allow. That is exactly why the procedure is often perceived as «minor».

In terms of aftercare it is not minor, though. The knee was irritated before the operation and the thigh muscle correspondingly weakened; the operation adds to that in the short term. Anyone who simply returns to everyday life afterwards takes the strength deficit along.

10.1 What the aftercare achieves

A synthesis of 18 randomised trials of physiotherapy after partial meniscectomy showed: supervised therapy in addition to a home programme improved function more than a home programme alone (difference 10.3 points, confidence interval 1.3 to 19.3) and likewise knee flexion (9.1 degrees, confidence interval 3.7 to 14.5) [36]. The authors themselves point to the limited quality of the individual trials.

Not everyone needs a full programme. Someone who walked well before the operation, is young and quickly walks normally again often manages with instruction and a home programme. Someone who was already weakened, is older or works physically benefits from supervised therapy.

10.2 A usual course

• Week 0 to 2: settle the swelling, restore full extension, contract the thigh deliberately, walk normally without a limp. Crutches only for as long as the gait would otherwise be wrong.
• Week 2 to 6: building strength with rising resistance, single-leg exercises, balance, cycling. Everyday loads back to normal.
• Week 6 to 12: heavier loads, jumping and landing work if that is the goal, sport-specific movements. Return to sport by criteria, not by date (section 12).

Return to a desk job is usually possible within a few days to two weeks, physical work takes longer. These figures are experience-based and depend strongly on the occupation.

11. After a meniscal repair: the aftercare

Here everything is different. There is a repair that has to hold and tissue that has to heal together. That takes months, not weeks.

11.1 Weight-bearing and flexion: what the studies say

Traditionally, people with a repair were kept off the leg for a long time – six weeks on crutches, flexion limited in a brace. Whether that is necessary has been examined.

A review of 15 studies with 17 different aftercare protocols compared «accelerated» programmes (early full weight-bearing and free range of motion) with variously restricted ones. The result: comparable success rates; early motion and early weight-bearing had no discernible detrimental influence on the outcome [33]. A follow-up of 157 people with a repair over at least five years likewise found no difference in failure rates between immediate weight-bearing as tolerated and traditional protection – the tears studied were peripheral, vertical ones [34].

Two qualifications belong with this. First, these are retrospective and synthesising works, not randomised trials. Second – and more importantly – this applies to peripheral longitudinal tears. For radial tears, root repairs and complex reconstructions, stricter rules apply, because there flexion under load pulls directly on the repair.

In practice: the aftercare protocol comes from the operating theatre, not from a textbook and not from this article. Ask what applies to your tear: how much weight, how much flexion, for how long? A good protocol answers all three questions with numbers.

11.2 What is protected in every case

Across all protocols there are movements that are avoided in the first months because they pull the torn edges apart:

• Deep flexion under load – deep squats, squatting down, sitting on the heels. The posterior part of the meniscus is squeezed between the bones and pushed backwards.
• Twisting on the loaded leg – turning with the foot planted, changing direction.
• Jumping and landing, until cleared.

These three typically apply for about three to four months. What very much is possible during that time: strength work within the permitted range, cycling without a low saddle, gait retraining, balance, upper-body and other-leg training. Resting is not the programme – the restriction concerns particular directions of movement, not training as such.

11.3 The usual course in phases

As a rough framework – your clinic may deviate from it, and then its instructions apply:

• Week 0 to 6: protection phase. Weight-bearing and flexion as prescribed, often with a brace. Secure full extension, activate the thigh, control swelling, strength work within the permitted range.
• Week 6 to 12: building phase. Range of motion fully released, weight-bearing normalised, progressive strength training, single-leg exercises, balance. Cycling and swimming (no breaststroke kick) are usually possible.
• Month 3 to 5: performance phase. Deeper flexion under load added step by step, jumping and landing work, changes of pace, changes of direction at rising difficulty.
• From month 5: return to sport – by criteria (section 12).

The synthesis of 28 studies with 664 people after isolated meniscal repair reports a mean return to sport between 4.3 and 6.5 months; 89 per cent reached their pre-injury level again [35]. These figures are encouraging – though they come from predominantly young, sporting groups.

11.4 Two special cases

After a root repair the approach is usually stricter: longer partial weight-bearing, tighter limits on flexion, particularly consistent avoidance of deep squatting. The reason is mechanical – it is precisely in deep flexion that the meniscus pulls on the repaired attachment.

Repaired together with a cruciate ligament reconstruction, menisci heal better than when repaired in isolation, because the joint comes into contact with blood after the procedure and healing is stimulated. The aftercare then follows the cruciate ligament, supplemented by the meniscal restrictions – usually the ligament is the slower part.

12. Back to work and sport: criteria rather than the calendar

The question «when may I again?» tends to be answered with a number of weeks. That is convenient and imprecise. Tissue heals on a timescale, capacity is built by training – and the two do not run at the same pace.

More sensible are criteria that can be checked. The usual ones are:

• No swelling after loading, no effusion.
• Full extension and enough flexion for the sport in question.
• Strength at least 90 per cent of the healthy side – measured, not estimated.
• Hop tests at least 90 per cent of the healthy side, for sports with jumping and changes of direction.
• Confidence in sport-specific movements at full speed.

For choosing such tests after knee injuries there is now a systematic appraisal of their measurement properties from the international OPTIKNEE working group [38]. More important than the choice of the individual test is that measurement happens at all – and that the same test is used before and after.

The same group has also gathered what matters for the joint in the long run after a knee injury: build strength and capacity, stay physically active, keep an eye on body weight, and follow the course over years rather than closing the case at the return to sport [37]. That is the real long-term task after a meniscal injury – more important than whether surgery was done or not.

For work the same applies in simpler form: desk work is possible early, work involving kneeling, ladders, carrying and squatting requires the corresponding capacity. Raise the concrete demands of your workplace in therapy – they can be trained.

13. Where, how often and for how long therapy takes place

No guideline gives a fixed number of sessions. What the trials offer are the programmes themselves: ESCAPE worked with 16 sessions over about eight weeks [15], the Norwegian trial with two to three supervised sessions a week over twelve weeks [14], DREAM with twelve weeks of exercise and education [17].

In Switzerland one medical prescription covers nine sessions [39]. For conservative treatment over three months, one to two such prescriptions are as a rule enough, provided training happens independently between appointments. After a meniscal repair it is usually more, because the phases last longer and clearance comes in steps.

The decisive point is a different one anyway: what happens between appointments matters more than the number of appointments. Two supervised sessions a week without a home programme are worth less than one session every two weeks plus consistent practice at home. That is exactly what the review of aftercare following partial meniscectomy shows as well: the combination of supervised therapy and a home programme did best [36].

14. When it does not run smoothly

The knee stays swollen. An effusion that returns after every session is a loading signal, not a coincidence. Usually the dosing is wrong – less often something else is behind it. Report it; the load gets adjusted, the training does not get cancelled.

Extension is still missing. After two to three weeks the knee should straighten fully. If a block persists, it needs assessment – with a flipped bucket handle, waiting is the wrong answer.

The pain stays although strength is rising. This happens. Often beginning osteoarthritis is behind it; its treatment points in the same direction but needs a longer breath – see our article on osteoarthritis. Sometimes the cause is not in the joint at all.

Fear of movement. Someone who fears harming the knee loads it less. Loading less means becoming weaker. Becoming weaker means more symptoms – and thus more reason for caution. This circle is well known after knee injuries and it is treatable; it usually begins with explanation. Knowing that a trained leg protects the knee changes a surprising amount.

After a repair: renewed catching or sudden swelling. This may indicate failure of the repair and belongs back with the operating clinic – not in the next therapy session.

15. A realistic timeline

Orientation values from the cited literature and from practice, not prescriptions. Individual courses deviate, upwards as well as downwards.

Conservative, degenerative tear:

• Week 1 to 3: settle the irritation, secure extension, reactivate the thigh, adjusted everyday loading.
• Week 3 to 12: the actual training phase, two to three sessions a week. This is where most of the improvement arises [14].
• Month 3 to 6: further building, return to more demanding activities. In the trials both groups continued to improve over two years [16].
• After twelve weeks without any improvement the situation needs reassessing.

After partial removal: everyday life within days to a few weeks, sport by criteria usually between week 6 and 12.

After repair: protection phase about six weeks, building until month 3, return to sport on average between 4.3 and 6.5 months [35], longer for root repairs and complex reconstructions.

16. Seven common misunderstandings

«There is a tear on the MRI – that explains my pain.»
61 per cent of people with a meniscal tear on a scan had had no symptoms at all in the preceding month, and in people with osteoarthritis a tear is almost exactly as common in those with pain (63 per cent) as in those without (60 per cent) [4]. The tear belongs to the picture but not automatically to the cause.

«A torn meniscus has to come out or it will get worse.»
For the degenerative tear the opposite is documented: partial removal was not superior to sham surgery [9], [10], and at five years the operated showed rather more signs of osteoarthritis [11], [26].

«Physiotherapy is the fallback if you don't want surgery.»
In the Dutch trial physiotherapy was not inferior to surgery at two and at five years; the authors explicitly call it the treatment to be preferred [16]. In the Norwegian trial the exercise group was even better on muscle strength [14].

«If my knee catches, only surgery helps.»
That is precisely what was tested in the sham-surgery trial: for catching and occasional locking, removing the piece of meniscus brought no advantage [23]. True mechanical locking is a different matter – it needs prompt assessment.

«Keyhole surgery is minor, might as well have it done.»
Within 90 days, 0.3 per cent suffer a serious complication, including pulmonary embolisms and infections requiring further surgery [24]. The risk is small, but it is not zero – and for a procedure without benefit, any risk is too much.

«After a meniscal repair you have to rest.»
What is spared are particular movements – deep flexion under load, twisting on the loaded leg, jumping. The training itself runs from the beginning, within the permitted range. Early motion and early weight-bearing did not worsen success rates in the available studies [33], [34].

«After six weeks it will all be over.»
With conservative treatment the main work falls into weeks 3 to 12 [14]; after a repair, return to sport averages around half a year [35]. Six weeks is a waypoint.

17. When to get in touch

Seek prompt medical assessment:

• The knee mechanically will not fully straighten any more – suspicion of true locking.
• A sudden, sharp pain at the back of the inner side of the knee, often when rising from a squat, followed by swelling – suspicion of a root tear.
• The knee gives way.
• Fever, redness, warmth, increasing pain after an operation – suspicion of infection.
• New calf pain, one-sided swelling of the lower leg, breathlessness or chest pain after an operation – suspicion of thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.

Raise in physiotherapy:

• The knee is clearly thicker after every session and moves worse the following day.
• Full extension is still missing after two to three weeks.
• You cannot contract the thigh deliberately or lift the straight leg.
• After eight to twelve weeks of regular training none of the measured values has improved.
• You avoid movements for fear of harming the knee.
• You have a goal that has never been discussed – back to the mountain, back on the pitch, back up the ladder.

What to expect in our practice: first the classification – traumatic or degenerative tear, with or without locking, with or without osteoarthritis. Then a baseline assessment (range of motion, girth, strength and activation of the thigh, sit-to-stand test, walking, balance, and hop tests where the goals are sporting). From that, a training programme with clear steps of progression and a home programme for the time in between. After four to six weeks we measure again. If nothing moves despite regular training, it belongs back in medical assessment – and conversely we say so when we think an orthopaedic opinion is needed.

18. In summary

A meniscal tear is two very different things. In a young knee after an injury the point is to save tissue that does not grow back – there a repair can be the right route, with a long, staged aftercare. In a knee over forty without any injury the tear is usually a companion sign of wear, and there the matter is as well studied as almost anything in orthopaedics: partial removal is superior neither to a sham operation nor to physiotherapy.

What does work instead is unspectacular and strenuous: three months of strength training two to three times a week with rising load, plus balance and movement patterns, plus a home programme between appointments. The result is on average the same as after an operation – with more muscle strength, without surgical risk and without permanent loss of meniscal tissue.

Clear reasons for surgery remain: true locking, a readily repairable tear in a young, active person, the root tear. And one question remains that you may ask before any operation: «Can my tear be repaired – and what happens if we train for three months first?»

A knee with a meniscal tear is not a damaged knee that has to be spared from now on. It is a knee that needs stronger surroundings.

If you would like to practise standing up and stepping down and learn something about the knee along the way: our learning game Kniewerk takes you from the valley to the summit with fifteen clean squats. It does not replace therapy – but it makes pace and depth tangible.

References

Every Digital Object Identifier (DOI) was checked individually against the Crossref register. The links in the reference list lead via the DOI service to the publishers' pages. Some of these are located outside Switzerland and the EU. When you click, your IP address is transmitted to the respective provider – on our own site this does not happen.

[1] Logerstedt DS, Scalzitti DA, Bennell KL, et al. Knee Pain and Mobility Impairments: Meniscal and Articular Cartilage Lesions Revision 2018. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2018;48(2):A1–A50. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2018.0301

[2] Fox AJS, Wanivenhaus F, Burge AJ, Warren RF, Rodeo SA. The human meniscus: A review of anatomy, function, injury, and advances in treatment. Clinical Anatomy. 2015;28(2):269–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22456

[3] Makris EA, Hadidi P, Athanasiou KA. The knee meniscus: Structure–function, pathophysiology, current repair techniques, and prospects for regeneration. Biomaterials. 2011;32(30):7411–7431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.06.037

[4] Englund M, Guermazi A, Gale D, et al. Incidental Meniscal Findings on Knee MRI in Middle-Aged and Elderly Persons. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;359(11):1108–1115. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0800777

[5] Horga LM, Hirschmann AC, Henckel J, et al. Prevalence of abnormal findings in 230 knees of asymptomatic adults using 3.0 T MRI. Skeletal Radiology. 2020;49(7):1099–1107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03394-z

[6] Smith BE, Thacker D, Crewesmith A, Hall M. Special tests for assessing meniscal tears within the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence Based Medicine. 2015;20(3):88–97. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2014-110160

[7] Goossens P, Keijsers E, van Geenen RJC, et al. Validity of the Thessaly Test in Evaluating Meniscal Tears Compared With Arthroscopy: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2015;45(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2015.5215

[8] Beaufils P, Becker R, Kopf S, et al. Surgical management of degenerative meniscus lesions: the 2016 ESSKA meniscus consensus. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2017;25(2):335–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4407-4

[9] Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al. Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy versus Sham Surgery for a Degenerative Meniscal Tear. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;369(26):2515–2524. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1305189

[10] Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus placebo surgery for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 2-year follow-up of the randomised controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2018;77(2):188–195. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211172

[11] Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 5 year follow-up of the placebo-surgery controlled FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) trial. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020;54(22):1332–1339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102813

[12] Katz JN, Brophy RH, Chaisson CE, et al. Surgery versus Physical Therapy for a Meniscal Tear and Osteoarthritis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(18):1675–1684. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1301408

[13] Katz JN, Shrestha S, Losina E, et al. Five-Year Outcome of Operative and Nonoperative Management of Meniscal Tear in Persons Older Than Forty-Five Years. Arthritis & Rheumatology. 2020;72(2):273–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.41082

[14] Kise NJ, Risberg MA, Stensrud S, Ranstam J, Engebretsen L, Roos EM. Exercise therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for degenerative meniscal tear in middle aged patients: randomised controlled trial with two year follow-up. BMJ. 2016;354:i3740. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3740

[15] van de Graaf VA, Noorduyn JCA, Willigenburg NW, et al. Effect of Early Surgery vs Physical Therapy on Knee Function Among Patients With Nonobstructive Meniscal Tears: The ESCAPE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018;320(13):1328–1337. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13308

[16] Noorduyn JCA, van de Graaf VA, Willigenburg NW, et al. Effect of Physical Therapy vs Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy in People With Degenerative Meniscal Tears: Five-Year Follow-up of the ESCAPE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(7):e2220394. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20394

[17] Skou ST, Hölmich P, Lind M, et al. Early Surgery or Exercise and Education for Meniscal Tears in Young Adults. NEJM Evidence. 2022;1(2):EVIDoa2100038. https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2100038

[18] Thorlund JB, Juhl CB, Roos EM, Lohmander LS. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms. BMJ. 2015;350:h2747. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2747

[19] O'Connor D, Johnston RV, Brignardello-Petersen R, et al. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2022;(3):CD014328. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014328

[20] Siemieniuk RAC, Harris IA, Agoritsas T, et al. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ. 2017;357:j1982. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1982

[21] Abram SGF, Beard DJ, Price AJ; BASK Meniscal Working Group. Arthroscopic meniscal surgery: a national society treatment guideline and consensus statement. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2019;101-B(6):652–659. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2019-0126.R1

[22] smarter medicine – Choosing Wisely Switzerland, in Zusammenarbeit mit swiss orthopaedics. Top-5-Liste Orthopädie/Traumatologie. Punkt 1: Kein arthroskopisches Débridement als Erstbehandlung bei Kniearthrosen. Bern; 2024. smartermedicine.ch

[23] Sihvonen R, Englund M, Turkiewicz A, Järvinen TLN; Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study Group. Mechanical Symptoms and Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy in Patients With Degenerative Meniscus Tear: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016;164(7):449–455. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-0899

[24] Abram SGF, Judge A, Beard DJ, Price AJ. Adverse outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: a study of 700 000 procedures in the national Hospital Episode Statistics database for England. The Lancet. 2018;392(10160):2194–2202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31771-9

[25] Rongen JJ, Rovers MM, van Tienen TG, Buma P, Hannink G. Increased risk for knee replacement surgery after arthroscopic surgery for degenerative meniscal tears: a multi-center longitudinal observational study using data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2017;25(1):23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2016.09.013

[26] Sillanpää N, Iivanainen M, Turkiewicz A, et al. Effect of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy on structural degeneration of the knee – A 5-year MRI-based follow-up of the placebo-surgery controlled FIDELITY (Finnish Degenerative Meniscus Lesion Study) trial. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2025;33(2):276–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2024.09.003

[27] Persson F, Turkiewicz A, Bergkvist D, Neuman P, Englund M. The risk of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis after arthroscopic meniscus repair vs partial meniscectomy vs the general population. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2018;26(2):195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2017.08.020

[28] Stensrud S, Risberg MA, Roos EM. Effect of Exercise Therapy Compared with Arthroscopic Surgery on Knee Muscle Strength and Functional Performance in Middle-Aged Patients with Degenerative Meniscus Tears. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2015;94(6):460–473. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000209

[29] Kopf S, Beaufils P, Hirschmann MT, et al. Management of traumatic meniscus tears: the 2019 ESSKA meniscus consensus. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2020;28(4):1177–1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05847-3

[30] Bhatia S, LaPrade CM, Ellman MB, LaPrade RF. Meniscal Root Tears: Significance, Diagnosis, and Treatment. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014;42(12):3016–3030. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514524162

[31] Chung KS, Ha JK, Yeom CH, et al. Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Results Between Partial Meniscectomy and Refixation of Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tears: A Minimum 5-Year Follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(10):1941–1950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.03.035

[32] Nepple JJ, Dunn WR, Wright RW. Meniscal Repair Outcomes at Greater Than Five Years: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – American Volume. 2012;94(24):2222–2227. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.01584

[33] O'Donnell K, Freedman KB, Tjoumakaris FP. Rehabilitation Protocols After Isolated Meniscal Repair: A Systematic Review. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017;45(7):1687–1697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516667578

[34] Perkins B, Gronbeck KR, Yue RA, Tompkins MA. Similar failure rate in immediate post-operative weight bearing versus protected weight bearing following meniscal repair on peripheral, vertical meniscal tears. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2018;26(8):2245–2250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4665-9

[35] Eberbach H, Zwingmann J, Hohloch L, et al. Sport-specific outcomes after isolated meniscal repair: a systematic review. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2018;26(3):762–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4463-4

[36] Dias JM, Mazuquin BF, Mostagi FQRC, et al. The Effectiveness of Postoperative Physical Therapy Treatment in Patients Who Have Undergone Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy: Systematic Review With Meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2013;43(8):560–576. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2013.4255

[37] Whittaker JL, Culvenor AG, Juhl CB, et al. OPTIKNEE 2022: consensus recommendations to optimise knee health after traumatic knee injury to prevent osteoarthritis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;56(24):1393–1405. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2022-106299

[38] Berg BØ, Urhausen AP, Øiestad BE, et al. What tests should be used to assess functional performance in youth and young adults following anterior cruciate ligament or meniscal injury? A systematic review of measurement properties for the OPTIKNEE consensus. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;56(24):1454–1464. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2022-105510

[39] Verordnung des EDI über Leistungen in der obligatorischen Krankenpflegeversicherung (KLV), SR 832.112.31, Art. 5 (Physiotherapie). Zusammengefasst in: FMH. Verordnung von Physiotherapie im KVG-Bereich – Frequently Asked Questions. Stand 31.10.2022. fmh.ch (PDF)