High failure rate after medial meniscus bucket handle tears repair in the stable knee

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103737
Hassan Alhamdi , Constant Foissey , Thais Dutra Vieira , Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet , Vishal Rajput , Sami Bahroun , Jean Marie Fayard , Mathieu Thaunat
{"title":"High failure rate after medial meniscus bucket handle tears repair in the stable knee","authors":"Hassan Alhamdi ,&nbsp;Constant Foissey ,&nbsp;Thais Dutra Vieira ,&nbsp;Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet ,&nbsp;Vishal Rajput ,&nbsp;Sami Bahroun ,&nbsp;Jean Marie Fayard ,&nbsp;Mathieu Thaunat","doi":"10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>It is nowadays recommended to “Save the meniscus“. This paradigm is based on the affirmation that an extended meniscectomy exposes to the risk of long-term secondary </span>osteoarthritis and the global failure rate of a longitudinal tear repair remains low, whether it is the medial or lateral meniscus, with or without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, each kind of lesion has to be studied separate.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The study aimed to focus on a homogeneous population of isolated repair of the bucket handle tear (BHT) of the medial meniscus (MM) in patients with stable knees to evaluate failure rate at a minimum of three years of follow-up. The secondary objectives were to evaluate any risk factors or protective factors of failure, clinical outcomes, and secondary amount of meniscectomy in failure cases compared to the amount of meniscus fixed in the first surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>All patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a BHT of the MM situated in the red-on-red or red-on white (RW) zone on a stable knee between January 2010 and December 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Failure was defined as a need for reoperation for recurrence of meniscal symptoms (pain, locking) on the medial side with per-operative confirmation of the absence of healing. The following parameters were studied: demographics (age, gender, BMI), time from injury to surgery, clinical scores (Tegner, Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC]), surgical findings (extent and zone of the tear), surgical management (number and type of suture).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirty-nine patients were included. The mean follow-up was 77.2<!--> <!-->±<!--> <span><span>24.4 [36–141] months. Twenty-seven (69%) failures were recorded. In 56% (15/27) of the reoperations, the meniscectomy amount was smaller than what it would have been done in the first surgery. All clinical scores improved significantly from pre- to post-operatively; all patients met minimal clinically important differences for all the scores. No risk factors were found significant in the </span>multivariate analysis.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Repairing an isolated BHT of the MM is associated with a high failure rate. Despite the failure, we observed that the meniscectomy area was smaller than documented in the primary surgery in most of the cases and repair must still be considered as the first option.</p></div><div><h3>Level of evidence</h3><p>IV; retrospective cohort series.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54664,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedics & Traumatology-Surgery & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877056823002736","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

It is nowadays recommended to “Save the meniscus“. This paradigm is based on the affirmation that an extended meniscectomy exposes to the risk of long-term secondary osteoarthritis and the global failure rate of a longitudinal tear repair remains low, whether it is the medial or lateral meniscus, with or without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, each kind of lesion has to be studied separate.

Purpose

The study aimed to focus on a homogeneous population of isolated repair of the bucket handle tear (BHT) of the medial meniscus (MM) in patients with stable knees to evaluate failure rate at a minimum of three years of follow-up. The secondary objectives were to evaluate any risk factors or protective factors of failure, clinical outcomes, and secondary amount of meniscectomy in failure cases compared to the amount of meniscus fixed in the first surgery.

Methods

All patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a BHT of the MM situated in the red-on-red or red-on white (RW) zone on a stable knee between January 2010 and December 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Failure was defined as a need for reoperation for recurrence of meniscal symptoms (pain, locking) on the medial side with per-operative confirmation of the absence of healing. The following parameters were studied: demographics (age, gender, BMI), time from injury to surgery, clinical scores (Tegner, Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC]), surgical findings (extent and zone of the tear), surgical management (number and type of suture).

Results

Thirty-nine patients were included. The mean follow-up was 77.2 ± 24.4 [36–141] months. Twenty-seven (69%) failures were recorded. In 56% (15/27) of the reoperations, the meniscectomy amount was smaller than what it would have been done in the first surgery. All clinical scores improved significantly from pre- to post-operatively; all patients met minimal clinically important differences for all the scores. No risk factors were found significant in the multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Repairing an isolated BHT of the MM is associated with a high failure rate. Despite the failure, we observed that the meniscectomy area was smaller than documented in the primary surgery in most of the cases and repair must still be considered as the first option.

Level of evidence

IV; retrospective cohort series.

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
稳定型膝关节内侧半月板桶柄撕裂修复后失败率高。
背景:现在建议“拯救半月板”。这一范式的基础是,延长半月板切除术暴露于长期继发性骨关节炎的风险,并且无论是内侧半月板还是外侧半月板,无论是否进行前交叉韧带(ACL)重建,纵向撕裂修复的总体失败率都很低。然而,每种病变都必须单独研究。目的:本研究旨在对膝关节稳定患者的内侧半月板斗柄撕裂(BHT)进行单一修复,以评估至少三年随访的失败率。次要目标是评估失败的任何风险因素或保护因素、临床结果以及与第一次手术中固定的半月板数量相比,失败病例中半月板切除术的次要数量。方法:回顾性评估2010年1月至2018年12月期间在稳定膝关节上接受关节镜下修复位于红对红或红对白(RW)区的MM BHT的所有患者。失败被定义为内侧半月板症状(疼痛、锁定)复发需要再次手术,每次手术确认没有愈合。研究了以下参数:人口统计学(年龄、性别、BMI)、从受伤到手术的时间、临床评分(Tegner,Lysholm,国际膝关节文献委员会[IKDC])、手术结果(撕裂的范围和区域)、手术处理(缝合线的数量和类型)。结果:纳入39名患者。平均随访时间为77.2±24.4[36-141]个月。记录了二十七次(69%)故障。在56%(15/27)的再次手术中,半月板切除量小于第一次手术时的切除量。所有临床评分从术前到术后均有显著改善;所有患者的所有评分均达到最小的临床重要差异。在多变量分析中没有发现显著的危险因素。结论:修复MM的孤立性BHT有较高的失败率。尽管失败了,但我们观察到,在大多数情况下,半月板切除面积比初次手术中记录的要小,修复仍然必须被视为第一选择。证据级别:四级;回顾性队列系列。
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
5.10
自引率
26.10%
发文量
329
审稿时长
12.5 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) publishes original scientific work in English related to all domains of orthopaedics. Original articles, Reviews, Technical notes and Concise follow-up of a former OTSR study are published in English in electronic form only and indexed in the main international databases.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Contents Diagnostic criteria of forearm chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a systematic review. Lag screw versus locking plate fixation for traumatic displaced medial malleolar fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. What does the SOFCOT-RENACOT 2024 hip prosthesis register tell us?
×
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