Katz Jeffrey N, Wright John, Spindler Kurt P, Mandl Lisa A, Safran-Norton Clare E, Reinke Emily K, Levy Bruce A, Wright Rick W, Jones Morgan H, Martin Scott D, Marx Robert G, Losina Elena
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Nov 16;98(22):1890-1896. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.01466.
Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) combined with physical therapy (PT) have yielded pain relief similar to that provided by PT alone in randomized trials of subjects with a degenerative meniscal tear. However, many patients randomized to PT received APM before assessment of the primary outcome. We sought to identify factors associated with crossing over to APM and to compare pain relief between patients who had crossed over to APM and those who had been randomized to APM.
We used data from the MeTeOR (Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research) Trial of APM with PT versus PT alone in subjects ≥45 years old who had mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis and a degenerative meniscal tear. We assessed independent predictors of crossover to APM among those randomized to PT. We also compared pain relief at 6 months among those randomized to PT who crossed over to APM, those who did not cross over, and those originally randomized to APM.
One hundred and sixty-four subjects were randomized to and received APM and 177 were randomized to PT, of whom 48 (27%) crossed over to receive APM in the first 140 days after randomization. In multivariate analyses, factors associated with a higher likelihood of crossing over to APM among those who had originally been randomized to PT included a baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Score of ≥40 (risk ratio [RR] = 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00, 3.93) and symptom duration of <1 year (RR = 1.74; 95% CI = 0.98, 3.08). Eighty-one percent of subjects who crossed over to APM and 82% of those randomized to APM had an improvement of ≥10 points in their pain score at 6 months, as did 73% of those who were randomized to and received only PT.
Subjects who crossed over to APM had presented with a shorter symptom duration and greater baseline pain than those who did not cross over from PT. Subjects who crossed over had rates of surgical success similar to those of the patients who had been randomized to surgery. Our findings also suggest that an initial course of rigorous PT prior to APM may not compromise surgical outcome.
Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
在针对半月板退变撕裂患者的随机试验中,关节镜下部分半月板切除术(APM)联合物理治疗(PT)所带来的疼痛缓解效果与单纯PT相似。然而,许多被随机分配接受PT的患者在主要结局评估之前就接受了APM。我们试图确定与转为接受APM相关的因素,并比较转为接受APM的患者与那些被随机分配接受APM的患者之间的疼痛缓解情况。
我们使用了骨关节炎研究中的半月板撕裂(MeTeOR)试验的数据,该试验比较了≥45岁、患有轻至中度骨关节炎和半月板退变撕裂的受试者接受APM联合PT与单纯PT的情况。我们评估了随机分配接受PT的患者中转而接受APM的独立预测因素。我们还比较了随机分配接受PT且转为接受APM的患者、未转为接受APM的患者以及最初随机分配接受APM的患者在6个月时的疼痛缓解情况。
164名受试者被随机分配并接受了APM,177名受试者被随机分配接受PT,其中48名(27%)在随机分组后的前140天内转为接受APM。在多变量分析中,最初被随机分配接受PT的患者中转而接受APM可能性较高的相关因素包括基线西部安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)疼痛评分≥40(风险比[RR]=1.99;95%置信区间[CI]=1.00,3.93)以及症状持续时间<1年(RR=1.74;95%CI=0.98,3.08)。转为接受APM的受试者中有81%以及被随机分配接受APM的受试者中有82%在6个月时疼痛评分改善≥10分,被随机分配仅接受PT的受试者中这一比例为73%。
与未从PT组转为接受APM的患者相比,转为接受APM的患者症状持续时间更短,基线疼痛更严重。转为接受APM的患者手术成功率与被随机分配接受手术的患者相似。我们的研究结果还表明,在APM之前进行一个疗程的严格PT可能不会影响手术效果。
预后水平II。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参阅作者指南。