Indirect Magnetic Resonance Arthrography May Help Avoid Second Look Arthroscopy for Assessment of Healing After Bucket Handle Medial Meniscus Repairs: A Prospective Clinico-Radiological Observational Study

ObjectivesThe objectives were: (1) to analyze the MRI healing rates of bucket-handle meniscus repair; (2) to compare the accuracy of assessment of meniscus healing for conventional MRI and Indirect Magnetic Resonance Arthrography (IMRA); and (3) to identify patients who may require second-look arthroscopy after meniscus repair.MethodsThis is a prospective observational case series of thirty-seven patients with repaired bucket-handle medial meniscus tear with a minimum one year follow-up. Meniscus healing rates were assessed on direct MRI and IMRA using Henning’s criteria. At the same time, patients’ symptoms were evaluated according to Barrett’s criteria and functional outcomes were recorded using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Osteoarthritis and Outcomes Score (KOOS) and Tegner–Lysholm scores. A further clinical review was performed 18 months after the imaging to assess the evolution of symptoms.ResultsAt a mean of 22.3 ± 7.8 months after the meniscus repair, 56.7% patients showed complete healing and 40.5% patients demonstrated incomplete repair healing on IMRA. 52% patients with complete healing and 40% patients with incomplete healing demonstrated meniscus symptoms. At the second clinical review, 19% patients with complete healing and 20% patients with incomplete healing had meniscus symptoms. There was no co-relation between symptoms, PROMs and healing on MRI.ConclusionIndirect MR arthrography offers distinct advantages over direct MRI for assessment of meniscus healing, especially in symptomatic patients. Patient-reported outcome measures and symptomatology are not co-related with the healing status of the meniscus and they resolve in the majority on longer follow-up. A more conservative approach guided by IMRA to assess meniscus healing will avoid early re-operations.     

应用Fast-fix 360全内缝合技术修复半月板Ramp区损伤的临床研究

目的探讨应用Fast-fix 360全关节内缝合技术修补半月板Ramp区损伤的方法和疗效。方法2016年10月至2018年4月,中部战区总医院骨科足踝与运动医学中心使用Fast-fix 360缝合技术修补经镜下确诊为内侧半月板Ramp区损伤病人15例,其中男14例,女1例,平均年龄为23.6岁,病人均合并前交叉韧带(anterior cruciate ligament,ACL)断裂,均予以一期行ACL自体腘绳肌单束重建,6例合并外侧半月板损伤亦同期处理。术后行膝关节标准化功能康复。收集病例手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症情况;术前、术后半年、术后1年的Lysholm膝关节评分、国际膝关节评分委员会(International Knee Documentation Committee,IKDC)评分;术后半年、1年分别复查患膝关节MRI,评估Ramp区损伤修复情况。结果病人随访13~26个月(平均17.8个月)。手术时间为(90.8±21.4)min,术中出血量为(50.5±10.6)ml。术后2例病人移植肌腱供区伤口浅表感染,经延长换药后均愈合;无伤口深部感染及膝关节感染;未出现腘窝血管神经损伤情况。术后半年及1年的Lysholm膝关节评分、IKDC评分均显著高于术前,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。术后半年MRI评估Ramp区的愈合率为73.3%,术后1年其愈合率提高至86.7%。结论使用Fast-fix 360全关节内缝合技术修补半月板Ramp区损伤,同时一期重建ACL,可获得较满意的临床疗效,方法简单、手术时间短,可作为半月板Ramp区损伤的一种常规修复方法。     

All-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundMeniscal repair using all-inside devices has garnered popularity compared to inside-out repair, yet few studies directly compare the two techniques in terms meniscal healing rates, surgical time, patient outcomes and incidence of complications.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed using the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases. English-language studies comparing all-inside and inside-out arthroscopic meniscal repair techniques directly were included. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with at least 10 patients in each treatment arm were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed effect (when I2 < 50%) or random effects model (I2 ≥ 50%).ResultsA total of 1042 studies were identified with seven being sui for inclusion (n = 505 patients). These comprised of one RCT two prospective and four retrospective, comparative, observational studies. Meta-analyses demonstrated that there was a significant reduction in operating time favouring all-inside repair (ratio of means [ROM] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–0.79; p = 0.0002) based on 3 studies (n = 208 patients). Based on 5 studies (n = 370 patients), there was no significant difference in meniscal healing rates between the groups (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.52–3.10; p = 0.61). Nerve injury was more common after inside-out repair. There was a 85% reduction in the odds of nerve injury with the all-inside technique (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05–0.47; p = 0.0013). A qualitative data analysis suggested no difference in functional outcomes between the two techniques.ConclusionsAll-inside meniscal repair is associated with reduced operative time and a lower odds of nerve injury complications compared to inside-out repair, without compromising meniscal healing or functional results.     

Preoperative morphologic changes of the medial meniscus correlate with suture translations during knee flexion in pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tear

BackgroundMedial meniscus (MM) translates and extrudes posteriorly during knee flexion in MM posterior root tear (MMPRT) knees, and transtibial pullout repair of MMPRT has been performed to regulate the MM extrusion. This study aimed to calculate each suture translation during knee flexion in transtibial pullout repair of MMPRT, and to investigate the morphologic features of the MM that lead to longer suture translations during knee flexion.MethodsThirty patients with MMPRT who met the operative indication of pullout repair were enrolled and investigated prospectively. Pullout repair was performed by using two simple stitches (outer and inner sutures) and an all-inside suture in the posteromedial part of the MM. Each suture’s translation from 0° to 90° of knee flexion was measured intraoperatively. The MM morphologic features, including MM medial extrusion (MMME) and MM posterior height (MMPH), were measured using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, and the correlation between these values and each suture translation was evaluated.ResultsThe average outer, inner, and all-inside suture translations were 4.8 mm, 3.9 mm, and 1.3 mm, respectively. Significant correlations were observed between the outer suture translation and MMME, and MMPH (p < 0.001 and <0.01, respectively). The thresholds for preoperative MMME and MMPH for longer outer suture translations (≥6 mm) were 2.1 mm and 5.4 mm, respectively.ConclusionsPreoperative longer MMME and higher MMPH were associated with longer meniscus translations during knee flexion during MMPRT repair.     

Predictors of the outcome of physiotherapy following a meniscus tear: A systematic review

BackgroundPhysiotherapy is indicated for treatment of a painful degenerative knee meniscus tear. Predicting the outcome remains uncertain.ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to identify which predictive factors are associated with the outcome of physiotherapy for degenerative knee meniscus tear.MethodsA systematic electronic literature search was undertaken of PubMed, CINAHL, Medline with AMED and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to July 2021. Studies of adults receiving physiotherapy which presented data on the association of baseline variables and the treatment outcome were included. Study quality was assessed using CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) tools. Data were narratively analysed.Results1051 titles were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies investigated just degenerative tears. The evidence-base was of low/moderate quality. Across all studies, seven and five studies (100%) reported no association between mechanical symptoms or gender respectively (p > 0.05). There was no association with osteoarthritis in 80%, age in 71%, or body mass index in 60% of studies (p > 0.05). Four studies (80%) reported that higher baseline pain was associated with cross-over to surgery, greater improvement with surgery or less improvement in pain score (p > 0.05).ConclusionPatient demographic characteristics provide minimal association with outcome following physiotherapy for degenerative meniscus tear. The evidence-base is limited in size and quality. A large adequately powered prospective cohort study investigating a broad range of predictive factors is warranted to develop a predictive model to better stratify those most likely to benefit from physiotherapy.     

膝关节镜下中心成形联合边缘稳定术治疗外侧盘状半月板损伤

目的探讨关节镜下中心成形联合边缘稳定术治疗外侧盘状半月板损伤的疗效。方法收集自2009-01—2013-08诊治的盘状半月板损伤68例(72膝),经MRI和关节镜下确诊后,随机分成2组。A组给予保留边缘6~8 mm成形联合半月板稳定术,进行体部、肌腱裂口周围垂直缝合固定,前、后角经胫骨骨道固定;B组行盘状半月板全切或次全切除术。观察2组术后3、6、12膝关节功能Lysholm评分,术后12个月MRI半月板板台比。结果 A组34例获得随访,B组34例获得随访,随访时间平均12.3(12~14)个月。患者术后关节活动度恢复满意,关节交锁及弹响症状消失,无再撕裂或因症状复发需要二次手术者。2组术后3、6个月Lysholm评分差异无统计学意义(t=1.826,P=0.077;t=0.442,P=0.661);术后12个月A组Lysholm评分较B组高,差异有统计学意义(t=3.718,P=0.001)。A组术后12个月MRI半月板板台比为(9.2±2.6)%,B组为(5.0±2.7)%,A组残存半月板板台比较B组高,差异有统计学意义(t=3.475,P=0.001);但比同侧正常的(12.3%)低。结论对于不稳定盘状软骨损伤,在半月板成形的基础上,给予周边缝合固定及前后角重建固定,能最大程度地保留外侧半月板周缘并保持其稳定性,具有良好的短期疗效。     

成人前交叉韧带断裂并半月板损伤的临床研究

目的：探讨前交叉韧带（ ACL）断裂对半月板损伤的影响。方法回顾分析2010年12月至2013年12月,本组收治的373例ACL断裂合并半月板损伤患者行关节镜手术治疗的临床资料。将患者按损伤不同时段分为急性期组、亚慢性期组及慢性期组,分析半月板损伤的位置、类型分布情况及与损伤不同时段的关系。结果 ACL断裂并内侧半月板损伤200例,并外侧半月板损伤164例,并内、外侧半月板损伤73例。不同组的损伤类型以纵行撕裂最多,其次为水平撕裂。内侧半月板损伤的发生率随病程增加,急性期为30.7％,亚慢性期增为51.9％,慢性期则增为89.8％。外侧半月板损伤的发生率与病程无明显关系。半月板损伤的复杂程度随病程增加。结论 ACL断裂可并发半月板损害,所致的关节不稳可继发半月板损伤。胫骨过度内旋及向前半脱位是造成ACL断裂后内侧半月板损伤的主要原因。     

膝关节半月板损伤术后疼痛及其影响因素分析

目的分析膝关节半月板损伤手术患者术后疼痛及其影响因素。 方法将2019年11月至2021年3月海军青岛特勤疗养中心收治的膝关节半月板损伤手术患者150例纳入研究,患者术后均接受规律康复训练治疗。以术后6个月视觉模拟评分表(VAS)得分患者分为疼痛组(n＝23)和非疼痛组(n＝127)。回顾性收集分析膝关节半月板损伤手术患者术后疼痛残留情况,卡方检验和多因素logistic回归分析法分析膝关节半月板损伤手术患者康复训练后疼痛残留的影响因素。 结果术后6个月,150例膝关节半月板损伤手术患者康复训练后疼痛23例,疼痛残留率为15.3%,疼痛组及非疼痛组患者术后6个月的VAS评分均较术前降低(t＝3.149、20.409,均为P<0.05);疼痛组与非疼痛组术前VAS评分差异无统计学意义(t＝0.630,P>0.05);非疼痛组术后6个月VAS评分较疼痛组低(t＝9.961,P<0.05)。年龄>60岁、身体质量指数(BMI)>24 kg/m²、关节软骨损伤、骨关节炎疼痛、行滑膜切除为膝关节半月板损伤患者术后疼痛残留的影响因素[优势比(OR)＝3.130、2.164、2.259、3.881、1.998; 95%置信区间(CI)：(1.537,6.376)、(1.420,3.298)、(1.135,4.495)、(1.376,10.945)、(1.054,3.785),均为P<0.05]。 结论膝关节半月板损伤手术患者康复训练后仍有部分遗留疼痛情况,其发生与年龄>60岁、BMI>24 kg/m²、关节软骨损伤、骨关节炎疼痛、行滑膜切除等因素相关。