Long-term Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears: A Cohort Study.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-19 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1177/23259671241296899
Abhinav Lamba, Mario Hevesi, Xuankang Pan, Alexander M Boos, Allen S Wang, Bruce A Levy, Michael J Stuart, Aaron J Krych
{"title":"Long-term Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears: A Cohort Study.","authors":"Abhinav Lamba, Mario Hevesi, Xuankang Pan, Alexander M Boos, Allen S Wang, Bruce A Levy, Michael J Stuart, Aaron J Krych","doi":"10.1177/23259671241296899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs) are a common subtype of meniscal tears that represent a clinical challenge. Arthroscopic inside-out repair has been considered the gold standard in treatment; however, an all-inside approach has gained widespread popularity, with limited long-term evidence.</p><p><strong>Purpose/hypothesis: </strong>The purpose of this study was to (1) compare long-term clinical outcomes and rates of failure after surgical repair of BHMTs using the all-inside versus inside-out technique, and 2) identify risk factors for failure at long-term follow-up. It was hypothesized that clinical outcomes and rates of failure would be similar between the 2 techniques.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who had undergone surgical repair of BHMTs between 2003 and 2013 at a single institution were identified. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up using the Tegner scale, International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, and visual analog scale pain at rest and with activity. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors for repair failure, defined as revision meniscal surgery and/or documented meniscal retear.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 63 patients were included (37 with inside-out repair, 26 with all-inside repair). At a mean follow-up of 11.2 years, the survival rate for BHMT repair was 63% overall, 70% for all-inside repairs, and 60% for inside-out repairs (<i>P</i> = .37). The mean time to failure was 2.6 years for all-inside repairs and 2.5 years for inside-out repairs (<i>P =</i> .98). PROM scores were not significantly different between the 2 repair groups (<i>P</i> > .22). Univariate Cox proportional hazards model for failure demonstrated that increasing age at surgery was associated with lower failure rates (hazard ratio, 0.91 change per 1-year increase in age; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98) and medial meniscus repair was associated with higher failure rates (hazard ratio, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.14-8.77).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Long-term follow-up of BHMT repair demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcomes and failure rates. In appropriately selected patients, the all-inside technique did not compromise outcome as compared with the inside-out repair techniques. For both methods, older age was associated with lower failure rates and medial meniscus repair was associated with increased failure.</p>","PeriodicalId":19646,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"12 12","pages":"23259671241296899"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662328/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241296899","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs) are a common subtype of meniscal tears that represent a clinical challenge. Arthroscopic inside-out repair has been considered the gold standard in treatment; however, an all-inside approach has gained widespread popularity, with limited long-term evidence.

Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to (1) compare long-term clinical outcomes and rates of failure after surgical repair of BHMTs using the all-inside versus inside-out technique, and 2) identify risk factors for failure at long-term follow-up. It was hypothesized that clinical outcomes and rates of failure would be similar between the 2 techniques.

Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: Patients who had undergone surgical repair of BHMTs between 2003 and 2013 at a single institution were identified. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up using the Tegner scale, International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, and visual analog scale pain at rest and with activity. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors for repair failure, defined as revision meniscal surgery and/or documented meniscal retear.

Results: In total, 63 patients were included (37 with inside-out repair, 26 with all-inside repair). At a mean follow-up of 11.2 years, the survival rate for BHMT repair was 63% overall, 70% for all-inside repairs, and 60% for inside-out repairs (P = .37). The mean time to failure was 2.6 years for all-inside repairs and 2.5 years for inside-out repairs (P = .98). PROM scores were not significantly different between the 2 repair groups (P > .22). Univariate Cox proportional hazards model for failure demonstrated that increasing age at surgery was associated with lower failure rates (hazard ratio, 0.91 change per 1-year increase in age; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98) and medial meniscus repair was associated with higher failure rates (hazard ratio, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.14-8.77).

Conclusion: Long-term follow-up of BHMT repair demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcomes and failure rates. In appropriately selected patients, the all-inside technique did not compromise outcome as compared with the inside-out repair techniques. For both methods, older age was associated with lower failure rates and medial meniscus repair was associated with increased failure.

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
桶柄半月板撕裂全内与由内到外修复的长期比较结果:一项队列研究。
背景:桶柄半月板撕裂(BHMTs)是一种常见的半月板撕裂亚型,代表了临床挑战。关节镜内外修复被认为是治疗的金标准;然而,一种全面的内部方法已经获得了广泛的普及,但长期证据有限。目的/假设:本研究的目的是:(1)比较采用全内和由内到外技术进行bhmt手术修复后的长期临床结果和失败率,以及(2)在长期随访中确定失败的危险因素。假设两种技术的临床结果和失败率相似。研究设计:队列研究;证据水平,3。方法:选取2003年至2013年在同一医院接受bhmt手术修复的患者。术前和最新随访时,采用Tegner量表、国际膝关节文献委员会问卷和静止和活动时疼痛的视觉模拟量表评估患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)。使用单变量Cox比例风险模型来确定修复失败的预测因素,定义为半月板翻修手术和/或记录的半月板复位。结果:共纳入63例患者,其中内外修复37例,全内修复26例。在平均11.2年的随访中,BHMT修复的总体生存率为63%,全内修复的生存率为70%,内外修复的生存率为60% (P = 0.37)。全内修复的平均失效时间为2.6年,由内到外修复的平均失效时间为2.5年(P = 0.98)。两组修复后的PROM评分差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。失败的单因素Cox比例风险模型显示,手术年龄增加与失败率降低相关(风险比,每1年年龄增加0.91;95% CI, 0.84-0.98)和内侧半月板修复与较高的失败率相关(风险比,3.12;95% ci, 1.14-8.77)。结论:BHMT修复术后长期随访,临床效果满意,失败率低。在适当选择的患者中,与由内而外修复技术相比,全内技术不会影响结果。对于这两种方法,年龄越大失败率越低,内侧半月板修复失败率越高。
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
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
876
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM), developed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal that combines the interests of researchers and clinical practitioners across orthopaedic sports medicine, arthroscopy, and knee arthroplasty. Topics include original research in the areas of: -Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopaedic sports injuries -Arthroscopic Surgery (Shoulder/Elbow/Wrist/Hip/Knee/Ankle/Foot) -Relevant translational research -Sports traumatology/epidemiology -Knee and shoulder arthroplasty The OJSM also publishes relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Association Between Autograft Choice and Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport After ACL Reconstruction. Evaluating the Mechanical Axis for Detection of Posterior Tibial Slope Malalignment in ACL-Deficient Knees on Lateral Radiographs. Evaluation of Thigh Muscle Strength in Adolescent Patients After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis or Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction. Relationship Between Quadriceps Strength at 6 Months Postoperatively and Improvement in Patient-Reported Knee Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Association of Preoperative Cartilage T1ρ Values With Progression of Knee Osteoarthritis 10 Years After Anatomical Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction: Follow-up of a Previous Prospective 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