A Lack of Joint Line Tenderness Is Consistent With a Healed Meniscus, But Positive Clinical Examination Findings and MRI Scans Are Inconsistent in Identifying Failure After Meniscal Repair: A Systematic Review and Subgroup Meta-analysis.

IF 4.2 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS American Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1177/03635465241295709
Jon H Schoenecker, Luke V Tollefson, Rafat H Solaiman, Jill K Monson, Morgan D Homan, Grant J Dornan, Nicholas I Kennedy, Erik Ronnblad, Robert F LaPrade
{"title":"A Lack of Joint Line Tenderness Is Consistent With a Healed Meniscus, But Positive Clinical Examination Findings and MRI Scans Are Inconsistent in Identifying Failure After Meniscal Repair: A Systematic Review and Subgroup Meta-analysis.","authors":"Jon H Schoenecker, Luke V Tollefson, Rafat H Solaiman, Jill K Monson, Morgan D Homan, Grant J Dornan, Nicholas I Kennedy, Erik Ronnblad, Robert F LaPrade","doi":"10.1177/03635465241295709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The number of meniscal repairs being completed each year is increasing; however, the optimal, cost-effective postoperative assessment to determine the success or failure of a meniscal repair is not well known.</p><p><strong>Purpose/hypothesis: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the clinical examination testing that correlates with objective magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or second-look arthroscopy (SLA) findings to determine an optimal clinical workup for assessing postoperative meniscal repair healing. It was hypothesized that specific clinical tests would correlate with meniscal repairs that did not heal.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review included all clinical studies investigating meniscal repairs, meniscal repair outcomes, and meniscal healing with clinical findings, MRI, and/or SLA, published in a peer-reviewed journal and with full English text available. All included studies were evaluated for bias using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). The clinical tests included those using \"Barrett's criteria,\" with the assessment of effusion, joint line tenderness, locking, McMurray testing, and radiographs. This parameter has also been abbreviated to \"modified Barrett's criteria\" to include only joint line tenderness, effusion, and McMurray testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant correlations were found between clinical tests and MRI or SLA. A subgroup meta-analysis between Barrett's and non-Barrett's studies reported no significant subgroup differences (χ<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup> = 0.24; <i>P</i> = .62). A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using a group of 7 studies that reported on true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative data for SLA demonstrated that only a lack of joint line tenderness had a high specificity for a healed meniscal repair, with a log diagnostic odds ratio of 2.62 (95% CI, 0.47-4.76).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found no significant correlation with any specific clinical test for meniscal repair healing status using postoperative MRI and/or SLA findings. However, it was found that no healing (when compared with complete or incomplete healing) on MRI and joint line tenderness should be considered when assessing the status of postoperative meniscal repair healing. In addition, a subgroup meta-analysis found that a lack of joint line tenderness was highly correlated with a healed meniscal repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":55528,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"3635465241295709"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241295709","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

Background: The number of meniscal repairs being completed each year is increasing; however, the optimal, cost-effective postoperative assessment to determine the success or failure of a meniscal repair is not well known.

Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the clinical examination testing that correlates with objective magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or second-look arthroscopy (SLA) findings to determine an optimal clinical workup for assessing postoperative meniscal repair healing. It was hypothesized that specific clinical tests would correlate with meniscal repairs that did not heal.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods: This systematic review included all clinical studies investigating meniscal repairs, meniscal repair outcomes, and meniscal healing with clinical findings, MRI, and/or SLA, published in a peer-reviewed journal and with full English text available. All included studies were evaluated for bias using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). The clinical tests included those using "Barrett's criteria," with the assessment of effusion, joint line tenderness, locking, McMurray testing, and radiographs. This parameter has also been abbreviated to "modified Barrett's criteria" to include only joint line tenderness, effusion, and McMurray testing.

Results: No significant correlations were found between clinical tests and MRI or SLA. A subgroup meta-analysis between Barrett's and non-Barrett's studies reported no significant subgroup differences (χ12 = 0.24; P = .62). A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using a group of 7 studies that reported on true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative data for SLA demonstrated that only a lack of joint line tenderness had a high specificity for a healed meniscal repair, with a log diagnostic odds ratio of 2.62 (95% CI, 0.47-4.76).

Conclusion: This study found no significant correlation with any specific clinical test for meniscal repair healing status using postoperative MRI and/or SLA findings. However, it was found that no healing (when compared with complete or incomplete healing) on MRI and joint line tenderness should be considered when assessing the status of postoperative meniscal repair healing. In addition, a subgroup meta-analysis found that a lack of joint line tenderness was highly correlated with a healed meniscal repair.

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
缺乏关节线压痛与半月板愈合一致,但阳性临床检查结果和MRI扫描在半月板修复后识别失败方面不一致:系统回顾和亚组荟萃分析。
背景:每年完成半月板修复的数量正在增加;然而,确定半月板修复成功或失败的最佳、成本效益的术后评估尚不清楚。目的/假设:本系统综述的目的是确定与客观磁共振成像(MRI)或二次关节镜(SLA)结果相关的临床检查测试,以确定评估半月板术后修复愈合的最佳临床检查。据推测,特定的临床试验可能与半月板修复不愈合有关。研究设计:系统评价和荟萃分析;证据等级,4级。方法:本系统综述包括所有研究半月板修复、半月板修复结果和半月板愈合的临床研究,包括临床表现、MRI和/或SLA,发表在同行评审的期刊上,并有完整的英文文本。所有纳入的研究均使用非随机研究方法学指数(minor)评估偏倚。临床试验包括使用“巴雷特标准”,评估积液、关节线压痛、锁定、麦克默里试验和x线片。该参数也被简化为“修改的巴雷特标准”,仅包括关节线压痛、积液和麦克默里试验。结果:临床检查与MRI或SLA无显著相关性。Barrett研究和非Barrett研究之间的亚组荟萃分析报告没有显著的亚组差异(χ12 = 0.24;P = .62)。对一组7项研究的诊断准确性进行荟萃分析,这些研究报告了SLA的真阳性、真阴性、假阳性和假阴性数据,结果表明,只有关节线压痛缺乏对半月板修复愈合具有高特异性,对数诊断优势比为2.62 (95% CI, 0.47-4.76)。结论:本研究发现,使用术后MRI和/或SLA结果进行半月板修复愈合状态的任何特定临床测试均无显著相关性。然而,我们发现在评估半月板术后修复愈合状态时,MRI上未愈合(与完全愈合或不完全愈合相比)和关节线压痛应该被考虑。此外,一项亚组荟萃分析发现,关节线压痛的缺乏与半月板修复愈合高度相关。
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
9.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
425
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: An invaluable resource for the orthopaedic sports medicine community, _The American Journal of Sports Medicine_ is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, first published in 1972. It is the official publication of the [American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)](http://www.sportsmed.org/)! The journal acts as an important forum for independent orthopaedic sports medicine research and education, allowing clinical practitioners the ability to make decisions based on sound scientific information. This journal is a must-read for: * Orthopaedic Surgeons and Specialists * Sports Medicine Physicians * Physiatrists * Athletic Trainers * Team Physicians * And Physical Therapists
期刊最新文献
Comparison of Revision and Primary Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation at Midterm Follow-up: Patient Reported Outcomes, Survivorship, and Reoperation Rates. Primary Fixation and Cyclic Performance of Posterior Horn Medial Meniscus Root Repair With Knotless Adjustable Suture Anchor-Based Fixation: A Human Biomechanical Evaluation Over 100,000 Loading Cycles. Association Between Global Overcoverage and Long-term Survivorship, Chondrolabral Junction Breakdown, and Reduced Joint Space Width: Minimum 8-Year Follow-up. Restriction of Posterior Tibial Translation During the Posterior Drawer Test in Internal or External Rotation Is Dependent on Peripheral Stabilizers of the Knee: A Biomechanical Robotic Investigation. Serial Changes in Muscle Strength and Dynamic Balance After Lateral Meniscal Allograft Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 55 Patients.
×
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