Kamaci Saygin, Pace James Lee
Children`s Health Andrews Institute, 7211 Preston road ste T1200, Plano, TX, 75024, USA.
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2025 Apr 26. doi: 10.1007/s12178-025-09971-w.
Meniscus repair plays a critical role in preserving knee function and delaying degenerative changes after a meniscus tear. Despite advancements in surgical techniques, there remains significant variability in how outcomes are defined and reported. This review examines the evolving interplay between traditional metrics of success such as reoperation rates, radiographic healing, etc., and the more subjective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).
Recent findings highlight the discrepancies between radiographic healing, symptomatic relief, and functional improvement. While reoperation rates remain a widely used failure criterion, they do not account for patients who avoid revision surgery despite persistent symptoms. MRI assessments can detect incomplete healing, but imaging abnormalities do not always correlate with clinical dysfunction. PROMs and return-to-sport (RTS) rates offer valuable insight into functional recovery, yet they vary across studies and may not always reflect anatomical failure. Emerging consensus supports a dual model: anatomical failure, which reflects structural compromise seen on imaging or second-look arthroscopy, and clinical failure, which includes persistent symptoms, limited function, or poor patient-reported outcomes regardless of imaging results. Meniscus repair failure should be assessed using a multidimensional approach, incorporating structural integrity, symptom persistence, functional performance, and patient satisfaction. Standardizing failure definitions will improve data comparability, enhance treatment strategies, and guide patient expectations. Future research should refine composite failure models and integrate meniscus-specific PROMs to optimize long-term outcomes. By redefining failure, clinicians can improve surgical success rates and provide more personalized, evidence-based care.
Not all healed menisci function well, and not all unhealed ones fail. By redefining failure, we can reframe success-and better serve patients.
半月板修复在维持膝关节功能和延缓半月板撕裂后的退变改变方面起着关键作用。尽管手术技术有所进步,但在结果的定义和报告方式上仍存在很大差异。本综述探讨了诸如再次手术率、影像学愈合等传统成功指标与更主观的患者报告结局测量(PROMs)之间不断演变的相互作用。
最新发现凸显了影像学愈合、症状缓解和功能改善之间的差异。虽然再次手术率仍然是广泛使用的失败标准,但它们并未考虑到尽管症状持续但避免翻修手术的患者。MRI评估可以检测到不完全愈合,但影像学异常并不总是与临床功能障碍相关。PROMs和重返运动(RTS)率为功能恢复提供了有价值的见解,但它们在不同研究中有所不同,可能并不总是反映解剖学上的失败。新出现的共识支持一种双重模型:解剖学失败,反映成像或二次关节镜检查中看到的结构受损;临床失败,包括持续症状、功能受限或患者报告结局不佳,无论影像学结果如何。半月板修复失败应采用多维度方法进行评估,纳入结构完整性、症状持续时间、功能表现和患者满意度。标准化失败定义将提高数据可比性,改进治疗策略,并指导患者预期。未来的研究应完善综合失败模型,并整合半月板特异性PROMs以优化长期结局。通过重新定义失败,临床医生可以提高手术成功率,并提供更个性化、基于证据的护理。
并非所有愈合的半月板功能都良好,也并非所有未愈合的半月板都失败。通过重新定义失败,我们可以重新界定成功——并更好地为患者服务。