Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Arthroscopy. 2020 Apr;36(4):1074-1082. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.08.045. Epub 2020 Jan 14.
To compare the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes of meniscal repair using absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in patients undergoing concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Data of 142 patients who underwent meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using either absorbable or nonabsorbable sutures for longitudinal meniscal tear were retrospectively reviewed. Inside-out suture technique was used for all meniscal repairs. Weight bearing and flexion (>90°) were allowed after 6 weeks postoperatively. Clinical evaluations were assessed by the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity score preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up. MRI outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared to identify the successful healing (complete or partial healing) rate and incidence of additional meniscal tears. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the results of medial or lateral meniscus.
Eighty patients underwent meniscal repair using absorbable sutures (mean age, 26.3 ± 11.9 years) and 62 patients with nonabsorbable sutures (mean age, 27.2 ± 10.0 years). There were no differences in zone and length of meniscal tears and stability tests between the groups. At a 2-year follow-up, all clinical scores had improved in both groups but did not differ significantly between the groups. Successful healing rate based on 1-year postoperative MRI was not significantly different between the absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures (93.7% vs 96.8%, P = .469). However, the absorbable sutures showed a lower additional tear incidence than the nonabsorbable sutures (2.5% vs 9.6%, P = .031). Subgroup analysis showed that the successful healing rate was not significantly different between the suture materials in both the medial and lateral menisci.
The use of absorbable sutures leads to comparable healing rates to and lower incidence of additional tears than nonabsorbable sutures in patients undergoing meniscal repair with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.
比较在接受前交叉韧带重建的同时进行半月板修复时,使用可吸收缝线与不可吸收缝线的临床和磁共振成像(MRI)结果。
回顾性分析了 142 例因纵向半月板撕裂接受前交叉韧带重建同时行半月板修复的患者的数据,这些患者分别使用可吸收缝线或不可吸收缝线。所有半月板修复均采用内-外缝合技术。术后 6 周开始负重和屈膝(>90°)。术前和术后 2 年采用国际膝关节文献委员会(International Knee Documentation Committee,IKDC)主观评分、Lysholm 评分和 Tegner 活动评分进行临床评估。在术后 1 年的 MRI 检查中比较了愈合(完全或部分愈合)率和半月板撕裂的发生率,以确定愈合情况。并进行了内侧或外侧半月板的亚组分析。
80 例患者采用可吸收缝线(平均年龄 26.3±11.9 岁)进行半月板修复,62 例患者采用不可吸收缝线(平均年龄 27.2±10.0 岁)。两组间半月板撕裂的部位和长度以及稳定性试验无差异。在 2 年的随访中,两组的所有临床评分均有改善,但组间无显著差异。根据术后 1 年的 MRI,可吸收缝线和不可吸收缝线的愈合率无显著差异(93.7%比 96.8%,P=.469)。然而,可吸收缝线的附加撕裂发生率低于不可吸收缝线(2.5%比 9.6%,P=.031)。亚组分析显示,在内侧和外侧半月板中,缝线材料的愈合率无显著差异。
在接受前交叉韧带重建的同时进行半月板修复时,与不可吸收缝线相比,使用可吸收缝线可达到相似的愈合率,并降低半月板撕裂的发生率。
III 级,回顾性比较治疗试验。