Outcomes of meniscal repair: minimum of 2-year follow-up.

David V Tuckman, Jonathan T Bravman, Susan S Lee, Jeffrey E Rosen, Orrin H Sherman
{"title":"Outcomes of meniscal repair: minimum of 2-year follow-up.","authors":"David V Tuckman,&nbsp;Jonathan T Bravman,&nbsp;Susan S Lee,&nbsp;Jeffrey E Rosen,&nbsp;Orrin H Sherman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine the success rate of meniscal repair achieved in our sports medicine practice, particularly with interest in characterizing the outcomes observed with the newer all-inside repair devices.</p><p><strong>Type of study: </strong>Retrospective chart review with telephone follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>157 patients that had undergone a meniscal repair procedure between 1996 and 2001 were identified. Twenty-four of these patients were lost to follow-up. Thus, the study group consisted of 133 patients providing a follow-up rate of 85%. All patients included had a minimum of two years of follow up. Failure was defined as the need for meniscectomy in the area of the meniscus that was initially repaired. The time interval from injury to surgery was divided into less than six weeks (acute) and greater than six weeks (chronic). The etiology of the meniscal tear was broken down into three categories; sports related trauma, non-sports trauma, and atraumatic. The repair techniques used in these patients included outside-in sutures, inside-out sutures, darts, arrows, meniscal screws, T-fix, FasT-fix, and the RapidLoc.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The failure rate was 36%. No association was found between failure and the length of preoperative symptoms, rim width, etiology, concomitant meniscectomy, chondroplasty or anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. There was a higher rate of failure of tears in the medial versus lateral meniscus (20.3% vs. 44.8%). No statistical comparisons could be made between devices due to small sample sizes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The all-inside meniscal repair devices have simplified the meniscal repair procedure. This may have lead to a broadening of the indications for repair</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>The newer generation meniscal repair devices, while simplifying the procedure, do not appear to lead to an increased clinical success rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":77050,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin (Hospital for Joint Diseases (New York, N.Y.))","volume":"63 3-4","pages":"100-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin (Hospital for Joint Diseases (New York, N.Y.))","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the success rate of meniscal repair achieved in our sports medicine practice, particularly with interest in characterizing the outcomes observed with the newer all-inside repair devices.

Type of study: Retrospective chart review with telephone follow-up.

Methods: 157 patients that had undergone a meniscal repair procedure between 1996 and 2001 were identified. Twenty-four of these patients were lost to follow-up. Thus, the study group consisted of 133 patients providing a follow-up rate of 85%. All patients included had a minimum of two years of follow up. Failure was defined as the need for meniscectomy in the area of the meniscus that was initially repaired. The time interval from injury to surgery was divided into less than six weeks (acute) and greater than six weeks (chronic). The etiology of the meniscal tear was broken down into three categories; sports related trauma, non-sports trauma, and atraumatic. The repair techniques used in these patients included outside-in sutures, inside-out sutures, darts, arrows, meniscal screws, T-fix, FasT-fix, and the RapidLoc.

Results: The failure rate was 36%. No association was found between failure and the length of preoperative symptoms, rim width, etiology, concomitant meniscectomy, chondroplasty or anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. There was a higher rate of failure of tears in the medial versus lateral meniscus (20.3% vs. 44.8%). No statistical comparisons could be made between devices due to small sample sizes.

Conclusions: The all-inside meniscal repair devices have simplified the meniscal repair procedure. This may have lead to a broadening of the indications for repair

Clinical relevance: The newer generation meniscal repair devices, while simplifying the procedure, do not appear to lead to an increased clinical success rate.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
半月板修复的结果:至少2年的随访。
目的:本研究的目的是确定在我们的运动医学实践中半月板修复的成功率,特别是对新型全内修复装置观察到的结果的特征感兴趣。研究类型:回顾性图表回顾,电话随访。方法:对1996年至2001年间接受半月板修复手术的157例患者进行分析。其中24例患者未能随访。因此,研究组由133例患者组成,随访率为85%。所有纳入的患者至少进行了两年的随访。手术失败的定义是需要在最初修复的半月板区域进行半月板切除术。从损伤到手术的时间间隔分为小于6周(急性)和大于6周(慢性)。半月板撕裂的病因分为三类;运动相关的创伤,非运动创伤和非创伤性。这些患者使用的修复技术包括外向内缝合、内向外缝合、飞镖、箭头、半月板螺钉、T-fix、FasT-fix和RapidLoc。结果:不合格率为36%。失败与术前症状的长度、边缘宽度、病因、合并半月板切除术、软骨成形术或前交叉韧带(ACL)重建没有关联。内侧半月板撕裂失败率高于外侧半月板撕裂失败率(20.3%比44.8%)。由于样本量小,无法在设备之间进行统计比较。结论:全内置式半月板修复装置简化了半月板修复程序。这可能导致修复适应症的扩大。临床相关性:新一代半月板修复装置虽然简化了手术程序,但似乎并未导致临床成功率的增加。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acetabular Fractures in the Elderly The effect of interference screw diameter on soft tissue graft fixation. The interaction between the whipstitch sutures of multi-strand ACL grafts and interference screw fixation. Slipped capital femoral epiphysis in identical twins: is there an HLA predisposition? Report of a case and review of the literature. Loose bodies in a sublabral recess: diagnosis and treatment.
×
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