Avila Amanda, Vasavada Kinjal, Shankar Dhruv S, Petrera Massimo, Jazrawi Laith M, Strauss Eric J
Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2022 Oct;15(5):336-343. doi: 10.1007/s12178-022-09770-7. Epub 2022 Jun 21.
Given the continued controversy among orthopedic surgeons regarding the indications and benefits of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), this review summarizes the current literature, indications, and outcomes of partial meniscectomy to treat symptomatic meniscal tears.
In patients with symptomatic meniscal tears, the location and tear pattern play a vital role in clinical management. Tears in the central white-white zone are less amenable to repair due to poor vascularity. Patients may be indicated for APM or non-surgical intervention depending on the tear pattern and symptoms. Non-surgical management for meniscal pathology includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), physical therapy (PT), and intraarticular injections to reduce inflammation and relieve symptoms. There have been several landmark multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the outcomes of APM compared to PT or sham surgery in symptomatic degenerative meniscal tears. These most notably include the 2013 Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) Trial, the 2018 ESCAPE trial, and the sham surgery-controlled Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study (FIDELITY), which failed to identify substantial benefits of APM over nonoperative treatment or even placebo surgery. Despite an abundance of literature exploring outcomes of APM for degenerative meniscus tears, there is little consensus among surgeons about the drivers of good outcomes following APM. It is often difficult to determine if the presenting symptoms are secondary to the meniscus pathology or the degenerative disease in patients with concomitant OA. A central tenet of managing meniscal pathology is to preserve tissue whenever possible. Most RCTs show that exercise therapy may be non-inferior to APM in degenerative tears if repair is not possible. Given this evidence, patients who fail nonoperative treatment should be counseled regarding the risks of APM before proceeding to surgical management.
鉴于骨科医生对于关节镜下部分半月板切除术(APM)的适应症和益处仍存在争议,本综述总结了目前关于治疗有症状半月板撕裂的部分半月板切除术的文献、适应症和结果。
在有症状的半月板撕裂患者中,撕裂的位置和模式在临床管理中起着至关重要的作用。由于血运较差,半月板中央白-白区的撕裂较难修复。根据撕裂模式和症状,患者可能适合进行APM或非手术干预。半月板病变的非手术管理包括使用非甾体类抗炎药(NSAIDs)、物理治疗(PT)以及关节内注射以减轻炎症和缓解症状。已经有几项具有里程碑意义的多中心随机对照试验(RCT),研究了在有症状的退行性半月板撕裂中,APM与PT或假手术相比的结果。其中最著名的包括2013年骨关节炎半月板撕裂研究(MeTeOR)试验、2018年ESCAPE试验以及假手术对照的芬兰退行性半月板病变研究(FIDELITY),这些试验均未发现APM比非手术治疗甚至安慰剂手术有显著益处。尽管有大量文献探讨了APM治疗退行性半月板撕裂的结果,但外科医生对于APM术后良好结果的驱动因素几乎没有共识。对于合并骨关节炎(OA)的患者,通常很难确定当前症状是继发于半月板病变还是退行性疾病。处理半月板病变的一个核心原则是尽可能保留组织。大多数RCT表明,如果无法进行修复,在退行性撕裂中运动疗法可能不劣于APM。鉴于这些证据,在进行手术治疗之前,应对非手术治疗失败的患者告知APM的风险。