Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4HH, United Kingdom; Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, South Tyneside Hospital, Harton Lane, South Tyneside, NE34 0PL, United Kingdom.
Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Earlham Road, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United kingdom.
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021 May;107(3):102803. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102803. Epub 2021 Jan 9.
There are several clinical outcome scores relating to meniscal injuries reported in the literature. However, the result of one scoring system is often different from that of the others even when assessing the same group of patients. This makes the comparison of results of studies who have used different outcome measures restrictive and difficult.
Statistically derived formulae can be used to predict the outcome of one knee scoring system when the result of another is known in patients with meniscal tears before and after arthroscopic meniscectomy.
Thirty-four patients with meniscal tears were evaluated using nine clinical outcome scores. These included Tegner Activity Score, Lysholm Knee Score, Cincinnati Knee Score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Objective Knee Score, Tapper and Hoover Meniscal Grading Score, IKDC Subjective Knee Score, Knee Outcome Survey-Activities of Daily Living Scale, Short Form-12 Item Health Survey (SF-12) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Twenty-nine patients underwent an arthroscopic meniscectomy and were reassessed 3 months post-operatively.
There were considerable differences between the mean total of each of the nine outcome measures. Significant correlations and regressions were found between most of the outcome scores and were stronger following surgery. The strongest correlation was found between IKDC Subjective and SF-12 Physical Component Summary sub-score (r=0.94, P<0.001). The strongest regression formula was found between IKDC Subjective and KOOS (R=0.93, P<0.001).
The outcome of one knee score can be predicted when the results of the other are known through formulae calculations produced from this study. This could facilitate the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in research pertaining to meniscal injuries by allowing the pooling of substantially more data.
II; prospective non-randomized trial.
文献中报道了几种与半月板损伤相关的临床结局评分。然而，即使评估的是同一组患者，一种评分系统的结果也常常与其他评分系统的结果不同。这使得使用不同结局测量指标的研究结果之间的比较变得受限且困难。
在关节镜半月板切除术前和术后半月板撕裂患者中，当已知另一种评分系统的结果时，可以使用统计推导公式来预测一种膝关节评分系统的结果。
34 例半月板撕裂患者使用 9 种临床结局评分进行评估。这些评分包括 Tegner 活动评分、Lysholm 膝关节评分、辛辛那提膝关节评分、国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）客观膝关节评分、Tapper 和 Hoover 半月板分级评分、IKDC 主观膝关节评分、膝关节结局调查-日常生活活动量表、简短形式-12 项健康调查（SF-12）和膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结局评分（KOOS）。29 例患者接受了关节镜半月板切除术，并在术后 3 个月进行了再次评估。
9 种结局测量指标的平均值之间存在相当大的差异。大多数结局评分之间存在显著相关性和回归关系，且在手术后更强。IKDC 主观评分和 SF-12 生理成分综合评分之间的相关性最强（r=0.94，P<0.001）。IKDC 主观评分和 KOOS 之间的回归公式最强（R=0.93，P<0.001）。
通过本研究产生的公式计算，可以预测一种膝关节评分的结果，而当其他评分的结果已知时。这可以通过允许汇集更多数据，促进与半月板损伤相关的研究的系统综述和荟萃分析的进行。
II；前瞻性非随机试验。
