Cinque Mark E, Geeslin Andrew G, Chahla Jorge, Dornan Grant J, LaPrade Robert F
Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, USA.
The Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;45(10):2253-2259. doi: 10.1177/0363546517704425. Epub 2017 May 16.
Radial meniscus tears disrupt the circumferential fibers and thereby compromise meniscus integrity. Historically, radial tears were often treated with meniscectomy because of an incomplete understanding of the biomechanical consequences of these tears, limited information regarding the biomechanical performance of repair, and the technical difficulty associated with repair. There is a paucity of studies on the outcomes of the repair of radial meniscus tears. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to determine the outcomes of 2-tunnel transtibial repair of radial meniscus tears and compare these results to the outcomes of patients who underwent the repair of vertical meniscus tears with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The hypothesis was that radial and vertical meniscus tear repair outcomes were comparable.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Patients who underwent 2-tunnel transtibial pullout repair for a radial meniscus tear were included in this study and compared with patients who underwent inside-out repair for a vertical meniscus tear. Subjective questionnaires were administered preoperatively and at a minimum of 2-year follow-up, including the Lysholm score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical component summary (PCS), the Tegner activity scale, and patient satisfaction. Analysis of covariance was used to compare postoperative outcome scores between the meniscus repair groups while accounting for baseline scores. Adjusted mean effects relative to the radial repair group were reported with 95% CIs.
Twenty-seven patients who underwent 2-tunnel transtibial pullout repair for radial meniscus tears and 33 patients who underwent inside-out repair for vertical meniscus tears were available for follow-up at a mean of 3.5 years (range, 2.0-5.4 years). No preoperative outcome score significantly differed between the groups. There were no significant group differences for any of the 2-year postoperative outcome scores. Relative to the vertical repair group, the radial repair group exhibited an adjusted mean of -0.2 (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.9), -0.6 (95% CI, -6.6 to 5.5), and 5.1 (95% CI, -3.9 to 14.0) points on the SF-12 PCS, WOMAC, and Lysholm scores, respectively.
The 2-tunnel transtibial pullout technique for the repair of radial meniscus tears produces similar clinical outcomes when compared with the repair of vertical meniscus tears at a mean 3.5 years' follow-up.
外侧半月板撕裂会破坏环形纤维,从而损害半月板的完整性。在历史上,由于对这些撕裂的生物力学后果认识不足、关于修复生物力学性能的信息有限以及与修复相关的技术难度,外侧半月板撕裂常采用半月板切除术治疗。关于外侧半月板撕裂修复结果的研究较少。目的/假设:目的是确定外侧半月板撕裂的双隧道经胫骨修复的结果,并将这些结果与接受垂直半月板撕裂修复且至少随访2年的患者的结果进行比较。假设是外侧和垂直半月板撕裂修复结果具有可比性。
队列研究;证据等级,3级。
本研究纳入接受双隧道经胫骨拉出修复外侧半月板撕裂的患者,并与接受由外向内修复垂直半月板撕裂的患者进行比较。术前和至少2年随访时进行主观问卷调查,包括Lysholm评分、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)、简短健康调查12项(SF-12)身体成分总结(PCS)、Tegner活动量表和患者满意度。采用协方差分析比较半月板修复组术后结果评分,同时考虑基线评分。报告相对于外侧修复组的调整后平均效应及95%可信区间。
27例接受双隧道经胫骨拉出修复外侧半月板撕裂的患者和33例接受由外向内修复垂直半月板撕裂的患者可进行随访,平均随访3.5年(范围2.0 - 5.4年)。两组术前结果评分无显著差异。术后2年的任何结果评分在两组间均无显著差异。相对于垂直修复组,外侧修复组在SF-12 PCS、WOMAC和Lysholm评分上的调整后平均值分别为-0.2(95%可信区间,-5.4至4.9)、-0.6(95%可信区间,-6.6至5.5)和5.1(95%可信区间,-3.9至14.0)分。
在平均3.