Does concomitant meniscus repair and meniscectomy show different efficacy in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 5.9 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic Translation Pub Date : 2024-07-25 DOI:10.1016/j.jot.2024.07.004
{"title":"Does concomitant meniscus repair and meniscectomy show different efficacy in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jot.2024.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><p>Currently, it is advised to perform meniscal repair instead of meniscectomy in certain cases of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the level of evidence is low. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of meniscectomy and meniscus repair in addition to ACLR.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The systematic search was conducted in three online databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane) from inception until October 2021 for the literature on primary ACLR and concomitant meniscal surgery. Eligible studies compared the following outcomes between meniscal repair and meniscectomy groups: the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and KT-arthrometer examinations. Lastly, we calculated pooled mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) from the change between pre- and post-intervention values.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 10,565 studies, 22 met the inclusion criteria, with a follow-up between 6 and 43 months. We found no difference when comparing the KOOS subscale changes—only in the KOOS pain subscale (MD = −1.6; CI: −2.48, −0.72). However, these results were not clinically significant. We analyzed the lateral and media meniscal injuries separately and concluded the same results regarding KOOS changes. We found no significant differences in the Lysholm score change (MD = −2.61; CI: −5.51, 0.29), changes in IKDC score (MD = 1.08; CI: −4.05, 6.21) or the change for the KT-arthrometer side-to-side difference (MD = −0.50; CI: −1.06, 0.06).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Based on our result, we did not find a clinically significant difference between meniscus repair and meniscectomy during primary ACLR regarding patient-reported outcomes in a short-term follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Translational potential</h3><p>Our research supports the prompt integration of findings into clinical practice for treating meniscus injuries during ACL reconstruction. We recommend considering both meniscus repair and meniscectomy, as the available data indicate their effectiveness. Further studies are necessary to assess the long-term impacts, particularly on osteoarthritis, and to identify patient subgroups that may benefit most from each technique.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16636,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Translation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214031X2400072X/pdfft?md5=03e714c69538490fbcec652ac8f984f3&pid=1-s2.0-S2214031X2400072X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Translation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214031X2400072X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims

Currently, it is advised to perform meniscal repair instead of meniscectomy in certain cases of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the level of evidence is low. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of meniscectomy and meniscus repair in addition to ACLR.

Methods

The systematic search was conducted in three online databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane) from inception until October 2021 for the literature on primary ACLR and concomitant meniscal surgery. Eligible studies compared the following outcomes between meniscal repair and meniscectomy groups: the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and KT-arthrometer examinations. Lastly, we calculated pooled mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) from the change between pre- and post-intervention values.

Results

Of 10,565 studies, 22 met the inclusion criteria, with a follow-up between 6 and 43 months. We found no difference when comparing the KOOS subscale changes—only in the KOOS pain subscale (MD = −1.6; CI: −2.48, −0.72). However, these results were not clinically significant. We analyzed the lateral and media meniscal injuries separately and concluded the same results regarding KOOS changes. We found no significant differences in the Lysholm score change (MD = −2.61; CI: −5.51, 0.29), changes in IKDC score (MD = 1.08; CI: −4.05, 6.21) or the change for the KT-arthrometer side-to-side difference (MD = −0.50; CI: −1.06, 0.06).

Conclusion

Based on our result, we did not find a clinically significant difference between meniscus repair and meniscectomy during primary ACLR regarding patient-reported outcomes in a short-term follow-up.

Translational potential

Our research supports the prompt integration of findings into clinical practice for treating meniscus injuries during ACL reconstruction. We recommend considering both meniscus repair and meniscectomy, as the available data indicate their effectiveness. Further studies are necessary to assess the long-term impacts, particularly on osteoarthritis, and to identify patient subgroups that may benefit most from each technique.

Abstract Image

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
前交叉韧带重建术中同时进行半月板修复术和半月板切除术的疗效不同吗?系统回顾和荟萃分析
目前,在某些初级前交叉韧带重建术(ACLR)的病例中,建议进行半月板修复术,而不是半月板切除术。然而,目前的证据水平还很低。因此,本研究旨在比较半月板切除术和半月板修复术对前交叉韧带重建的有效性。从开始到 2021 年 10 月,我们在三个在线数据库(EMBASE、MEDLINE 和 Cochrane)中对主要 ACLR 和同期半月板手术的文献进行了系统检索。符合条件的研究比较了半月板修复组和半月板切除组的以下结果:膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分(KOOS)、Lysholm评分、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分和KT-关节测量仪检查。最后,我们根据干预前和干预后数值的变化,计算出汇总平均差 (MD) 和 95% 置信区间 (CI)。在 10,565 项研究中,有 22 项符合纳入标准,随访时间在 6 至 43 个月之间。在比较 KOOS 分量表变化时,我们发现仅在 KOOS 疼痛分量表上没有差异(MD = -1.6; CI: -2.48, -0.72)。然而,这些结果并不具有临床意义。我们对外侧和中间半月板损伤进行了单独分析,得出的 KOOS 变化结果相同。我们发现,Lysholm评分变化(MD = -2.61;CI:-5.51,0.29)、IKDC评分变化(MD = 1.08;CI:-4.05,6.21)或KT-关节计侧对侧差异变化(MD = -0.50;CI:-1.06,0.06)均无明显差异。根据我们的研究结果,在短期随访中,我们没有发现半月板修复术和半月板切除术在患者报告结果方面有显著的临床差异。我们的研究支持将研究结果及时纳入临床实践中,以治疗前交叉韧带重建中的半月板损伤。我们建议同时考虑半月板修复术和半月板切除术,因为现有数据显示这两种方法都很有效。有必要进行进一步研究,以评估其长期影响,尤其是对骨关节炎的影响,并确定可能从每种技术中获益最多的患者亚群。
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
Journal of Orthopaedic Translation
Journal of Orthopaedic Translation Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
11.80
自引率
13.60%
发文量
91
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic Translation (JOT) is the official peer-reviewed, open access journal of the Chinese Speaking Orthopaedic Society (CSOS) and the International Chinese Musculoskeletal Research Society (ICMRS). It is published quarterly, in January, April, July and October, by Elsevier.
期刊最新文献
Failure analysis and design improvement of retrieved plates from revision surgery Emerging role of liver-bone axis in osteoporosis Biomarkers for hypertrophic chondrocyte differentiation are associated with spatial cellular organisation and suggest endochondral ossification-like processes in osteoarthritic cartilage: An exploratory study Corrigendum to “Sirt1 protects against intervertebral disc degeneration induced by 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D insufficiency in mice by inhibiting the NF-κB inflammatory pathway”[Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 40 (2023) 13–26] Addressing musculoskeletal disorders through new treatment strategies
×
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