MRI评价单侧半月板修复术的愈合率低于半月板修复术合并前交叉韧带重建术。

IF 0.6 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.5704/MOJ.2303.008
M Isono, H Koga, Y Nakagawa, T Nakamura, I Sekiya, H Katagiri
{"title":"MRI评价单侧半月板修复术的愈合率低于半月板修复术合并前交叉韧带重建术。","authors":"M Isono,&nbsp;H Koga,&nbsp;Y Nakagawa,&nbsp;T Nakamura,&nbsp;I Sekiya,&nbsp;H Katagiri","doi":"10.5704/MOJ.2303.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Isolated meniscal repair has been suggested as one of the contributing factors in unhealed meniscal repair. The purpose of this study was to compare the healing rate between isolated meniscal repair and meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a standardised assessment method after propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Accuracy of the Crues' grading system for meniscal healing was validated using second-look arthroscopy as the reference standard in 17 patients. Propensity score matching (one-to-one) was performed between 26 patients who underwent isolated meniscal repair and 98 patients who underwent meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR. Patients were matched for sex, age, side and zone of the meniscal repair, and number of sutures. Healing rates at one year which were evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity of the Crues' grading system on multiple plane MRI for meniscal healing were 100% and 83.3%, respectively. Both the isolated meniscal repair group and the meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR group included 21 patients after propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The healing rate was significantly lower in the isolated meniscal repairs group (14.3%) than in the meniscal repair concomitant with ACLR group (47.6%, P=0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The healing rate for isolated meniscal repair using a standardised MRI assessment method was inferior to that of meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR after propensity score matching.</p>","PeriodicalId":45241,"journal":{"name":"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10103921/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inferior Healing Rate in Isolated Meniscal Repair than that in Meniscal Repair with Concomitant ACL Reconstruction Evaluated with MRI.\",\"authors\":\"M Isono,&nbsp;H Koga,&nbsp;Y Nakagawa,&nbsp;T Nakamura,&nbsp;I Sekiya,&nbsp;H Katagiri\",\"doi\":\"10.5704/MOJ.2303.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Isolated meniscal repair has been suggested as one of the contributing factors in unhealed meniscal repair. The purpose of this study was to compare the healing rate between isolated meniscal repair and meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a standardised assessment method after propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Accuracy of the Crues' grading system for meniscal healing was validated using second-look arthroscopy as the reference standard in 17 patients. Propensity score matching (one-to-one) was performed between 26 patients who underwent isolated meniscal repair and 98 patients who underwent meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR. Patients were matched for sex, age, side and zone of the meniscal repair, and number of sutures. Healing rates at one year which were evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity of the Crues' grading system on multiple plane MRI for meniscal healing were 100% and 83.3%, respectively. Both the isolated meniscal repair group and the meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR group included 21 patients after propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The healing rate was significantly lower in the isolated meniscal repairs group (14.3%) than in the meniscal repair concomitant with ACLR group (47.6%, P=0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The healing rate for isolated meniscal repair using a standardised MRI assessment method was inferior to that of meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR after propensity score matching.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10103921/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2303.008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2303.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:孤立的半月板修复被认为是半月板修复不愈合的因素之一。本研究的目的是采用倾向评分匹配后的标准化评估方法,比较孤立半月板修复和半月板修复合并前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)的愈合率。材料和方法:17例患者采用二次关节镜作为参考标准,验证了Crues分级系统对半月板愈合的准确性。在26例接受孤立半月板修复的患者和98例接受半月板修复合并ACLR的患者之间进行倾向评分匹配(一对一)。患者根据性别、年龄、半月板修复的侧边和区域以及缝合次数进行匹配。采用核磁共振成像(MRI)对两组患者一年的愈合率进行比较。结果:多平面MRI Crues分级系统对半月板愈合的敏感性为100%,特异性为83.3%。倾向评分匹配后,单侧半月板修复组和半月板修复合并ACLR组均纳入21例患者。两组患者的基线特征无显著差异。单侧半月板修复组的愈合率(14.3%)明显低于ACLR联合半月板修复组(47.6%,P=0.04)。结论:经倾向评分匹配后,采用标准化MRI评估方法进行单侧半月板修复的愈合率低于合并ACLR的半月板修复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Inferior Healing Rate in Isolated Meniscal Repair than that in Meniscal Repair with Concomitant ACL Reconstruction Evaluated with MRI.

Introduction: Isolated meniscal repair has been suggested as one of the contributing factors in unhealed meniscal repair. The purpose of this study was to compare the healing rate between isolated meniscal repair and meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a standardised assessment method after propensity score matching.

Materials and methods: Accuracy of the Crues' grading system for meniscal healing was validated using second-look arthroscopy as the reference standard in 17 patients. Propensity score matching (one-to-one) was performed between 26 patients who underwent isolated meniscal repair and 98 patients who underwent meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR. Patients were matched for sex, age, side and zone of the meniscal repair, and number of sutures. Healing rates at one year which were evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared between the two groups.

Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the Crues' grading system on multiple plane MRI for meniscal healing were 100% and 83.3%, respectively. Both the isolated meniscal repair group and the meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR group included 21 patients after propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The healing rate was significantly lower in the isolated meniscal repairs group (14.3%) than in the meniscal repair concomitant with ACLR group (47.6%, P=0.04).

Conclusion: The healing rate for isolated meniscal repair using a standardised MRI assessment method was inferior to that of meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR after propensity score matching.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
104
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original papers and case reports three times a year in both printed and electronic version. The purpose of MOJ is to disseminate new knowledge and provide updates in Orthopaedics, trauma and musculoskeletal research. It is an Open Access journal that does not require processing fee or article processing charge from the authors. The Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal is the official journal of Malaysian Orthopaedic Association (MOA) and ASEAN Orthopaedic Association (AOA).
期刊最新文献
Bibliometric Analysis of Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal using Scopus Database. Complete Suprapatellar Plica in a Handball Player: A Case Report. Creating Novel Standards for Datapoints on an Elective Orthopaedic Theatre List Document. Deafening Silence of Malaysian Medical and Surgical Fraternities to the Gaza Genocide. Functional Outcomes and a Review of Management Options for Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty.
×
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