The First Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Department of Orthopaedics, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023 Sep 8;24(1):717. doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06602-8.
To preserve the meniscus's function, repairing the torn meniscus has become a common understanding. After which, the search for the ideal suture material is continuous. However, it is still controversial about the efficacy of suture absorbability on meniscus healing.
This review is designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
(1) Studies on meniscus repair; (2) Second-look arthroscopy was performed; (3) The meniscus was repaired by absorbable and non-absorbable sutures; (4) The healing condition of repaired meniscus via second-look arthroscopy was described.
(1) Animal studies, cadaveric studies, or in vitro research; (2) Meniscus transplantation; (3) Open meniscus repair; (4) Reviews, meta-analysis, case reports, letters, and comments; (5) non-English studies. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database were searched up to October 2022. Risk of bias and methodology quality of included literature were assessed according to ROBINS-I and the modified Coleman Methodological Scale (MCMS). Descriptive analysis was performed, and meta-analysis was completed by RevMan5.4.1.
Four studies were included in the systematic review. Among them, three studies were brought into the meta-analysis, including 1 cohort study and 2 case series studies about 130 patients with meniscal tears combined with anterior cruciate ligament injury. Forty-two cases were repaired by absorbable sutures, and 88 were repaired by non-absorbable sutures. Using the fixed effect model, there was a statistical difference in the healing success rate between the absorbable and the non-absorbable groups [RR1.20, 95%CI (1.03, 1.40)].
In early and limited studies, insufficient evidence supports that non-absorbable sutures in meniscus repair surgery could improve meniscal healing success rate under second-look arthroscopy compared with absorbable sutures. In contrast, available data suggest that absorbable sutures have an advantage in meniscal healing.
The review was registered in the PROSPERO System Review International Pre-Registration System (Registration number CRD42021283739).
为了保留半月板的功能,修复撕裂的半月板已成为共识。此后,人们一直在寻找理想的缝合材料。然而,关于半月板缝合的可吸收性对半月板愈合的疗效仍存在争议。
本综述按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行设计。
(1)半月板修复研究;(2)进行了二次关节镜检查;(3)采用可吸收和不可吸收缝线修复半月板;(4)通过二次关节镜检查描述修复后的半月板愈合情况。
(1)动物研究、尸体研究或体外研究;(2)半月板移植;(3)开放性半月板修复;(4)综述、荟萃分析、病例报告、信件和评论;(5)非英语研究。截至 2022 年 10 月,检索了 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库。根据 ROBINS-I 和改良的 Coleman 方法学量表(MCMS)评估纳入文献的偏倚风险和方法学质量。采用描述性分析,并使用 RevMan5.4.1 进行荟萃分析。
系统评价纳入了 4 项研究。其中,有 3 项研究纳入了荟萃分析,共纳入了 130 例合并前交叉韧带损伤的半月板撕裂患者,包括 1 项队列研究和 2 项病例系列研究。42 例采用可吸收缝线修复,88 例采用不可吸收缝线修复。使用固定效应模型,可吸收缝线组和不可吸收缝线组的愈合成功率有统计学差异[RR1.20,95%CI(1.03,1.40)]。
在早期的有限研究中,没有足够的证据支持半月板修复手术中使用不可吸收缝线与使用可吸收缝线相比,在二次关节镜检查下能提高半月板愈合成功率。相比之下,现有数据表明可吸收缝线在半月板愈合方面具有优势。
该综述已在 PROSPERO 系统评价国际注册系统(注册号:CRD42021283739)进行了注册。