Early Meniscal Repair Leads to Higher Success Rates Than Delayed Meniscal Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 4.2 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS American Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1177/03635465241298619
Jelle P van der List, Stef Daniel, Ingmar Blom, Joyce L Benner
{"title":"Early Meniscal Repair Leads to Higher Success Rates Than Delayed Meniscal Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Jelle P van der List, Stef Daniel, Ingmar Blom, Joyce L Benner","doi":"10.1177/03635465241298619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been an increased interest in meniscus preservation over the last decade. Several risk factors for the failure of meniscal repair have been identified. However, the timing of meniscal repair has not been extensively assessed in the literature, and there is currently no high-quality evidence on the optimal timing of performing meniscal repair after an injury with regard to outcomes.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the role of the timing of meniscal repair on outcomes in the literature.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for studies comparing the outcomes of early versus delayed meniscal repair. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported outcomes within and after a time threshold (eg, within and after 3 weeks). Random-effects models were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 35 studies with 3556 patients and 3767 menisci were included (mean age, 27.5 years; 66% male; mean follow-up, 4.5 years). Most studies were level 3 or 4 evidence, and the overall quality was low. The failure rates of meniscal repair were 11.3% versus 24.1% within versus after 2 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 511 patients; odds ratio [OR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.22-1.16]; <i>P</i> = .11); 7.2% versus 15.3% within versus after 3 weeks, respectively (5 studies, 556 patients; OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.10-0.79]; <i>P</i> = .02); 15.7% versus 21.3% within versus after 6 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 746 patients; OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.33-1.18]; <i>P</i> = .15); and 10.2% versus 18.7% within versus after 8 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 652 patients; OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26-0.87]; <i>P</i> = .02); these were significant for 3 and 8 weeks. No differences were seen for within versus after 3 months (7 studies, 1305 patients; 22.4% vs 18.5%, respectively; OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.47-2.33]; <i>P</i> = .92).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The timing of meniscal surgery was correlated with the likelihood of success, and meniscal repair should preferably be performed within 8 weeks of the injury, with the earliest benefit at 3 weeks. Clinicians should take this into consideration when recommending operative treatment or initial nonoperative treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":55528,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"3635465241298619"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","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/10.1177/03635465241298619","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: There has been an increased interest in meniscus preservation over the last decade. Several risk factors for the failure of meniscal repair have been identified. However, the timing of meniscal repair has not been extensively assessed in the literature, and there is currently no high-quality evidence on the optimal timing of performing meniscal repair after an injury with regard to outcomes.

Purpose: To assess the role of the timing of meniscal repair on outcomes in the literature.

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

Methods: The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for studies comparing the outcomes of early versus delayed meniscal repair. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported outcomes within and after a time threshold (eg, within and after 3 weeks). Random-effects models were used.

Results: A total of 35 studies with 3556 patients and 3767 menisci were included (mean age, 27.5 years; 66% male; mean follow-up, 4.5 years). Most studies were level 3 or 4 evidence, and the overall quality was low. The failure rates of meniscal repair were 11.3% versus 24.1% within versus after 2 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 511 patients; odds ratio [OR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.22-1.16]; P = .11); 7.2% versus 15.3% within versus after 3 weeks, respectively (5 studies, 556 patients; OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.10-0.79]; P = .02); 15.7% versus 21.3% within versus after 6 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 746 patients; OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.33-1.18]; P = .15); and 10.2% versus 18.7% within versus after 8 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 652 patients; OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26-0.87]; P = .02); these were significant for 3 and 8 weeks. No differences were seen for within versus after 3 months (7 studies, 1305 patients; 22.4% vs 18.5%, respectively; OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.47-2.33]; P = .92).

Conclusion: The timing of meniscal surgery was correlated with the likelihood of success, and meniscal repair should preferably be performed within 8 weeks of the injury, with the earliest benefit at 3 weeks. Clinicians should take this into consideration when recommending operative treatment or initial nonoperative treatment.

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
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