Gupta Ravi, Phogat Varun, Khokkhar Ritesh, Kapoor Anil
Sports Medicine, Fortis Hospital, Mohali, Punjab India.
Ivy Hospital, Mohali, Punjab India.
Indian J Orthop. 2024 Dec 2;59(1):115-120. doi: 10.1007/s43465-024-01297-y. eCollection 2025 Jan.
This study aims to enhance our understanding of the morphological pattern, causes and pathogenesis of meniscal root injuries in the Indian population.
Sixty-four patients with meniscus root tears were included in the study. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the location of the meniscus tear: Group 1 ( = 41) comprised patients with lateral meniscus root injury (LMRI), and Group 2 ( = 23) included patients with medial meniscus root injury (MMRI). Demographic and patient-specific data, such as age, gender, BMI, history of injury, and injury type, were recorded. All patients underwent surgical treatment, and intraoperative findings (chondral damage grade, type of root injury, associated ligamentous injuries) were documented. Meniscus root tears are further classified into 5 categories depending upon their morphological types. A minimum 12-month follow-up assessed functional outcomes using the Lysholm and IKDC knee scores.
The mean age for MMRI and LMRI was 50.3 years and 29.4 years, respectively. In the MMRI group, 48% (11/23) were female compared to only 15% (6/41) in the LMRI group. The mean BMI in the MMRI and LMRI groups was 30.1 and 25.4, respectively. Nine patients in MMRI and 4 patients in LMRI group exhibited grade 3 or higher chondral damage. Type 2 meniscus root tear was most common type in both the groups (51% in MMRI vs. 74% in LMRI). Both LMRI and MMRI groups demonstrated significant improvement in functional outcomes.
Medial meniscus root injuries predominantly occur in the elderly without a significant history of trauma, often associated with a high grade of medial femoral chondral damage, suggesting a degenerative etiology. In contrast, lateral meniscus root injuries tend to occur in younger patients with a notable history of knee injury, indicative of a traumatic etiology for LMRI.
本研究旨在加深我们对印度人群半月板根部损伤的形态学模式、病因及发病机制的理解。
本研究纳入了64例半月板根部撕裂患者。根据半月板撕裂的位置将患者分为两组:第1组(n = 41)为外侧半月板根部损伤(LMRI)患者,第2组(n = 23)为内侧半月板根部损伤(MMRI)患者。记录人口统计学和患者特异性数据,如年龄、性别、体重指数、损伤史和损伤类型。所有患者均接受手术治疗,并记录术中发现(软骨损伤分级、根部损伤类型、相关韧带损伤)。半月板根部撕裂根据其形态学类型进一步分为5类。至少12个月的随访使用Lysholm和IKDC膝关节评分评估功能结果。
MMRI组和LMRI组的平均年龄分别为50.3岁和29.4岁。在MMRI组中,48%(11/23)为女性,而在LMRI组中仅为15%(6/41)。MMRI组和LMRI组的平均体重指数分别为30.1和25.4。MMRI组中有9例患者和LMRI组中有4例患者表现出3级或更高等级的软骨损伤。2型半月板根部撕裂是两组中最常见的类型(MMRI组为51%,LMRI组为74%)。LMRI组和MMRI组的功能结果均有显著改善。
内侧半月板根部损伤主要发生在无明显创伤史的老年人中,常伴有高级别股骨内侧软骨损伤,提示为退行性病因。相比之下,外侧半月板根部损伤倾向于发生在有明显膝关节损伤史的年轻患者中,表明LMRI为创伤性病因。