Clinical evaluation of suture materials for transtibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tear.

IF 4.1 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Knee Surgery & Related Research Pub Date : 2022-10-08 DOI:10.1186/s43019-022-00167-x
Takaaki Hiranaka, Takayuki Furumatsu, Yuki Okazaki, Keisuke Kintaka, Yusuke Kamatsuki, Ximing Zhang, Haowei Xue, Masanori Hamada, Toshifumi Ozaki
{"title":"Clinical evaluation of suture materials for transtibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tear.","authors":"Takaaki Hiranaka,&nbsp;Takayuki Furumatsu,&nbsp;Yuki Okazaki,&nbsp;Keisuke Kintaka,&nbsp;Yusuke Kamatsuki,&nbsp;Ximing Zhang,&nbsp;Haowei Xue,&nbsp;Masanori Hamada,&nbsp;Toshifumi Ozaki","doi":"10.1186/s43019-022-00167-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There are no recommendations for specific suture materials in transtibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of transtibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears using ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene sutures and suture tape.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed the data of 36 patients (27 women and 9 men, mean age 64.1 years) who had undergone transtibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears between November 2018 and December 2019. Two groups of 18 patients each received either two different cord-like sutures or suture tape. Clinical parameters were assessed preoperatively and on second-look arthroscopy (mean postoperative period 12 months). The meniscal healing status was assessed using a previously published scoring system (ranging from 0 to 10), and the incidence rate of suture cut-out was assessed on second-look arthroscopy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All clinical scores significantly improved in both groups, with no significant between-group differences on second-look arthroscopy. The arthroscopic meniscal healing scores significantly differed between sutures (mean 6.7 points) and suture tape (mean 7.4 points; p = 0.044). No significant between-group difference in the suture cut-out rate was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found no significant differences in the clinical outcomes between ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene sutures and suture tape. Favorable clinical outcomes were obtained using both types of suture; however, the usefulness of suture tape appears to be limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":17886,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9548199/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-022-00167-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: There are no recommendations for specific suture materials in transtibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of transtibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears using ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene sutures and suture tape.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 36 patients (27 women and 9 men, mean age 64.1 years) who had undergone transtibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears between November 2018 and December 2019. Two groups of 18 patients each received either two different cord-like sutures or suture tape. Clinical parameters were assessed preoperatively and on second-look arthroscopy (mean postoperative period 12 months). The meniscal healing status was assessed using a previously published scoring system (ranging from 0 to 10), and the incidence rate of suture cut-out was assessed on second-look arthroscopy.

Results: All clinical scores significantly improved in both groups, with no significant between-group differences on second-look arthroscopy. The arthroscopic meniscal healing scores significantly differed between sutures (mean 6.7 points) and suture tape (mean 7.4 points; p = 0.044). No significant between-group difference in the suture cut-out rate was observed.

Conclusions: This study found no significant differences in the clinical outcomes between ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene sutures and suture tape. Favorable clinical outcomes were obtained using both types of suture; however, the usefulness of suture tape appears to be limited.

Abstract Image

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
经胫骨拔出修复内侧半月板后根撕裂的缝合材料的临床评价。
背景:在经胫骨拉拔修复内侧半月板后根撕裂时,没有推荐特定的缝合材料。本研究旨在评价采用超高分子量聚乙烯缝合线和缝合带经胫骨拉拔修复内侧半月板后根撕裂的临床效果。方法:回顾性分析2018年11月至2019年12月间行内侧半月板后根撕裂经胫骨拔出修复术的36例患者(女性27例,男性9例,平均年龄64.1岁)的资料。两组18名患者分别接受两种不同的绳状缝合线或缝合带。术前和二次关节镜评估临床参数(平均术后12个月)。使用先前发表的评分系统评估半月板愈合状况(范围从0到10),并在第二眼关节镜下评估缝线切断的发生率。结果:两组患者的所有临床评分均显著提高,第二眼关节镜检查组间无显著差异。关节镜下半月板愈合评分在缝合线(平均6.7分)和缝合带(平均7.4分)之间有显著差异;p = 0.044)。两组间缝线切断率无明显差异。结论:本研究发现超高分子量聚乙烯缝合线与缝合带在临床结果上无显著差异。两种缝合方式均获得良好的临床效果;然而,缝合带的用处似乎是有限的。
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
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A novel practical method to predict anterior cruciate ligament hamstring graft size using preoperative MRI Evaluating the accuracy and relevance of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions regarding total knee replacement Phenotype-considered kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty for windswept-deformity-associated osteoarthritis: surgical strategy and clinical outcomes Analysis of radiographic factors affecting the significant differences in knee alignment between hip-to-talus and hip-to-calcaneus radiographs after opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy Ramp lesion in anterior cruciate ligament injury: a review of the anatomy, biomechanics, epidemiology, and diagnosis.
×
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