Meniscal Repair Compared to Meniscectomy for Meniscal Injury: 3-year Outcomes from a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Q2 Medicine Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran Pub Date : 2023-11-11 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.47176/mjiri.37.120
Ergali Nabiyev, Arnat Baizakov, Khadisha Kashikova, Ramazan Askerov, Zhenisbek Baubekov, Zhassulan Argynbayev, Kuanysh Baikubesov
{"title":"Meniscal Repair Compared to Meniscectomy for Meniscal Injury: 3-year Outcomes from a Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Ergali Nabiyev, Arnat Baizakov, Khadisha Kashikova, Ramazan Askerov, Zhenisbek Baubekov, Zhassulan Argynbayev, Kuanysh Baikubesov","doi":"10.47176/mjiri.37.120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Meniscal injury is a common problem that can lead to knee pain and dysfunction. Meniscal repair and meniscectomy are two treatment approaches for meniscal injury, but the latter may increase the risk of osteoarthritis. We aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes of a new method of meniscal suturing with meniscectomy among patients with meniscal injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study compared meniscal repair (treatment group) and meniscectomy (control group) in patients with meniscal injury. We evaluated the outcomes of 134 patients. under treatment with these approaches based on the Lysholm scale, which measures knee function and symptoms. The study used the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the proportion of patients with different outcomes and the Lysholm scale scores between the treatment and control groups. The study also conducted subgroup analyses based on gender and age using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at <i>P</i> < 0.05 for all statistical tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The treatment group had a higher proportion of patients with excellent results, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.2% in the treatment group vs. 10.0% in the control group, <i>P</i> = 0.223). However, a comparative analysis of the proportion of patients with good results revealed statistically significant differences, with 67.2% of patients in the treatment group achieving good outcomes compared to 45.7% in the control group (χ2 = 6,256, df = 1 <i>P</i> = 0.012, HR 1,470 95%CI 1,081-1,999). The average score on the Lysholm scale was significantly higher in the treatment group (87.48, 95% CI 85.1-89.7, SD = 9.2) compared to the control group (81.73, 95% CI 78.4-84.9, SD = 13.7) (U = 1609, Z = -2.813, <i>P</i> = 0.005). Subgroup analyses based on gender and age also showed significant differences in the Lysholm scale scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study demonstrates that meniscal repair is more effective than meniscectomy in improving patient outcomes, with a higher proportion of patients achieving excellent and good results and higher scores on the Lysholm scale. These findings support the use of meniscal repair as a preferred treatment approach for patients with meniscal injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":18361,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10744140/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.37.120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Meniscal injury is a common problem that can lead to knee pain and dysfunction. Meniscal repair and meniscectomy are two treatment approaches for meniscal injury, but the latter may increase the risk of osteoarthritis. We aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes of a new method of meniscal suturing with meniscectomy among patients with meniscal injury.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared meniscal repair (treatment group) and meniscectomy (control group) in patients with meniscal injury. We evaluated the outcomes of 134 patients. under treatment with these approaches based on the Lysholm scale, which measures knee function and symptoms. The study used the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the proportion of patients with different outcomes and the Lysholm scale scores between the treatment and control groups. The study also conducted subgroup analyses based on gender and age using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05 for all statistical tests.

Results: The treatment group had a higher proportion of patients with excellent results, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.2% in the treatment group vs. 10.0% in the control group, P = 0.223). However, a comparative analysis of the proportion of patients with good results revealed statistically significant differences, with 67.2% of patients in the treatment group achieving good outcomes compared to 45.7% in the control group (χ2 = 6,256, df = 1 P = 0.012, HR 1,470 95%CI 1,081-1,999). The average score on the Lysholm scale was significantly higher in the treatment group (87.48, 95% CI 85.1-89.7, SD = 9.2) compared to the control group (81.73, 95% CI 78.4-84.9, SD = 13.7) (U = 1609, Z = -2.813, P = 0.005). Subgroup analyses based on gender and age also showed significant differences in the Lysholm scale scores.

Conclusion: The study demonstrates that meniscal repair is more effective than meniscectomy in improving patient outcomes, with a higher proportion of patients achieving excellent and good results and higher scores on the Lysholm scale. These findings support the use of meniscal repair as a preferred treatment approach for patients with meniscal injuries.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
半月板损伤的半月板修复术与半月板切除术的比较:一项回顾性队列研究的 3 年结果。
背景:半月板损伤是导致膝关节疼痛和功能障碍的常见问题。半月板修复术和半月板切除术是治疗半月板损伤的两种方法,但后者可能会增加骨关节炎的风险。我们旨在比较一种新的半月板缝合方法和半月板切除术对半月板损伤患者的 3 年疗效:这项回顾性队列研究比较了半月板损伤患者的半月板修复术(治疗组)和半月板切除术(对照组)。我们根据测量膝关节功能和症状的 Lysholm 量表,评估了 134 名接受上述方法治疗的患者的疗效。研究使用了卡方检验和曼-惠特尼U检验来比较治疗组和对照组之间不同结果的患者比例和Lysholm量表评分。研究还使用曼-惠特尼 U 检验对性别和年龄进行了分组分析。所有统计检验的显著性水平均定为 P <0.05:结果:治疗组中获得极佳疗效的患者比例更高,但差异无统计学意义(治疗组为 17.2%,对照组为 10.0%,P = 0.223)。然而,对获得良好结果的患者比例进行比较分析后发现,治疗组获得良好结果的患者比例为 67.2%,而对照组为 45.7%,差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 6,256, df = 1 P = 0.012, HR 1,470 95%CI 1,081-1,999)。与对照组(81.73,95% CI 78.4-84.9,SD = 13.7)相比,治疗组的 Lysholm 量表平均得分明显更高(87.48,95% CI 85.1-89.7,SD = 9.2)(U = 1609,Z = -2.813,P = 0.005)。基于性别和年龄的分组分析也显示,Lysholm量表评分存在显著差异:研究表明,在改善患者预后方面,半月板修复术比半月板切除术更有效,获得优秀和良好效果的患者比例更高,Lysholm量表评分也更高。这些研究结果支持将半月板修复术作为半月板损伤患者的首选治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
A 12-year Life History of a Girl with Profound Intellectual Disability and Leukoencephalopathy: A Rare Clinical Presentation of X Chromosome Pentasomy. A Three-Year Investigation on Corpses Referred to Legal Medicine Organization from An Iranian General Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study. A Single-Subject Study to Consider the Premature Infant Oral Motor Intervention Combined with Kinesio-Tape in Premature Infants with Feeding Problems. The Factor Structure and Generalizability of the Iranian Socioeconomic Status (SES) Questionnaire Administered in a Nationally Divergent Population. Serum Vitamin D and Zinc Levels in Children with Urinary Tract Infection without Confounding Factors: A Case-Control Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1