Hayashi Masateru, Isaji Yuichi, Kurasawa Yasuyuki, Kitagawa Takashi
Department of Rehabilitation, Matsuoka Orthopedic and Internal Medicine Rehabilitation, Gifu, JPN.
Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Bukkyo University, Kyoto, JPN.
Cureus. 2024 Dec 13;16(12):e75645. doi: 10.7759/cureus.75645. eCollection 2024 Dec.
The meniscus plays a vital role in knee biomechanics, particularly in load distribution and stability. Meniscus root tears (MRTs) compromise these functions, resulting in biomechanical alterations and knee osteoarthritis. The effectiveness of different MRT treatments is not yet well defined. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of MRT repair versus conservative therapy and conservative therapy versus multimodal or adjunct therapy in patients with MRTs. A systematic review of clinical studies was performed using electronic searches of PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PEDro databases. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). The database search identified 3,837 articles, of which 11 (three randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and eight cohort studies) were relevant. MRT repair surgery and conservative treatment improved the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales for activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QOL). Multimodal or adjunct therapies also enhanced KOOS subscales for ADL and QOL. In the bias risk assessment, three RCTs were of high risk, five cohort studies were of high quality, and three were of moderate quality. Additionally, the certainty of evidence was very low for all comparisons in GRADE. Therefore, the effectiveness of MRT repair, conservative therapy, and multimodal therapy remains unclear owing to the risk of bias and low certainty of evidence. Whether MRT repair versus conservative therapy and conventional versus multimodal or adjunct therapy are more effective in improving ADL and QOL remains unclear. Future treatment decisions require long-term, high-quality research including controlled and randomized trials with large sample sizes.
半月板在膝关节生物力学中起着至关重要的作用,尤其是在负荷分布和稳定性方面。半月板根部撕裂(MRTs)会损害这些功能,导致生物力学改变和膝关节骨关节炎。不同MRT治疗方法的有效性尚未明确界定。本研究旨在比较MRT修复与保守治疗以及保守治疗与多模式或辅助治疗对MRT患者的有效性。通过对PubMed、CENTRAL、CINAHL和PEDro数据库进行电子检索,对临床研究进行了系统评价。两名评价者独立进行筛选、数据提取、偏倚风险评估以及推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)。数据库检索共识别出3837篇文章,其中11篇(3篇随机对照试验[RCT]和8篇队列研究)相关。MRT修复手术和保守治疗改善了日常生活活动(ADL)和生活质量(QOL)的膝关节损伤和骨关节炎疗效评分(KOOS)子量表。多模式或辅助治疗也提高了ADL和QOL的KOOS子量表。在偏倚风险评估中,3项RCT为高风险,5项队列研究为高质量,3项为中等质量。此外,GRADE中所有比较的证据确定性都非常低。因此,由于存在偏倚风险和证据确定性低,MRT修复、保守治疗和多模式治疗的有效性仍不明确。MRT修复与保守治疗以及传统治疗与多模式或辅助治疗在改善ADL和QOL方面是否更有效仍不明确。未来的治疗决策需要长期、高质量的研究,包括大样本量的对照和随机试验。