-
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Oct 2023There is no consensus established on postoperative rehabilitation after medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) repair, including when and how physicians can apply...
BACKGROUND
There is no consensus established on postoperative rehabilitation after medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) repair, including when and how physicians can apply range of motion (ROM) exercise, weight-bearing (WB), brace use, and return to sports (RTS). The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on postoperative rehabilitation characteristics of MMPRT repair regarding ROM, WB, brace use, and RTS.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases. The inclusion criteria were English language, human clinical studies, and studies describing rehabilitation protocols after MMPRT repair such as ROM, WB, brace use, and RTS. Abstracts, case reports, cohort studies, controlled laboratory studies, human cadaveric or animal studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included. Of the 12 ROM studies, ROM was started immediately within 1 or 2 days after operation in 6 studies and after 2 to 3 weeks of knee immobilization in the rest. Of the 13 WB studies, partial weight-bearing was initiated 1 to 4 weeks after operation in 8 studies and 6 weeks in the rest. Of the 9 brace studies, patients were immobilized by a splint for 2 weeks in 3 studies, and in the rest, a brace with full extension was applied for 3 to 6 weeks after several days of splint application. Of the 7 RTS studies, RTS was allowed at 6 months in 6 studies and 5 to 7 months in 1 study.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review revealed conservative rehabilitation protocols were more widely adapted as ROM and WB were restricted at certain degrees during postoperative periods in most protocols analyzed. However, it is impossible to identify a consensus on rehabilitation protocols as the protocols analyzed in this review were distinct each other and heterogeneous. In the future, a well-designed comparative study among different rehabilitation protocols is essential to establish a consensus.
Topics: Humans; Menisci, Tibial; Return to Sport; Rupture; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Weight-Bearing
PubMed: 37811518
DOI: 10.4055/cios21231 -
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology,... Sep 2023To evaluate the overall evidence of published health-economic evaluation studies on meniscus tear treatment. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the overall evidence of published health-economic evaluation studies on meniscus tear treatment.
METHODS
Our systematic review focuses on health-economic evaluation studies of meniscus tear treatment interventions found in PubMed and Embase databases. A qualitative, descriptive approach was used to analyze the studies' results and systematically report them following PRISMA guidelines. The health-economic evaluation method for each included study was categorized following one of the four approaches: partial economic evaluation (PEE), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Comparisons of input variables and outcomes were made, if applicable.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included; of these, six studies performed PEE, seven studies CUA, two studies CEA, and one study combined CBA, CUA, and CEA. The following economic comparisons were analyzed and showed the respective comparative outcomes: (1) meniscus repair was more cost-effective than arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (meniscectomy) for reparable meniscus tear; (2) non-operative treatment or physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy for degenerative meniscus tear; (3) physical therapy with delayed meniscectomy was more cost-effective than early meniscectomy for meniscus tear with knee osteoarthritis; (4) meniscectomy without physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy with physical therapy; (5) meniscectomy was more cost-effective than either meniscus allograft transplantation or meniscus scaffold procedure; (6) the conventional arthroscopic instrument cost was lower than laser-assisted arthroscopy in meniscectomy procedures.
CONCLUSION
Results from this review suggest that meniscus repair is the most cost-effective intervention for reparable meniscus tears. Physical therapy followed by delayed meniscectomy is the most cost-effective intervention for degenerative meniscus tears. Meniscus scaffold should be avoided, especially when implemented on a large scale.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic review of level IV studies.
Topics: Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Meniscectomy; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Meniscus; Arthroscopy; Menisci, Tibial
PubMed: 36637478
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-022-07278-8 -
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024(1) Background: Bone bruises in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are closely linked to the occurrence of simultaneous meniscal and cartilage damage.... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Bone bruises in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are closely linked to the occurrence of simultaneous meniscal and cartilage damage. Despite the frequent occurrence of associated injuries including bone bruises, meniscus, and cartilage damage in patients with ACL injuries, a systematic review of the relationships between the presence of bone bruises and the extent of meniscus and cartilage injuries has yet to be conducted. (2) Methods: Multiple comprehensive databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were searched for studies that evaluated the relationship between bone bruises and meniscus or cartilage injuries following ACL injuries. Study selection, data extraction, and meta-analysis were performed. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) was used for quality assessments, and Review Manager 5.3 was used for data analysis. (3) Results: Data were extracted from 22 studies encompassing a total of 2891 patients with ACL injuries. Among the included studies, six studies investigated the relationships between bone bruises and medial meniscus (MM) or lateral meniscus (LM) injuries, while three studies investigated the relationships between bone bruises and cartilage injuries. There were no significant correlations between the presence of bone bruises and MM injuries (relative risk (RR) = 1.32; = 0.61). A quantitative analysis indicated that individuals with bone bruises had a 2.71-fold higher likelihood of sustaining LM injuries than those without bone bruises (RR = 2.71; = 0.0003). The analysis confirmed a significant relationship between bone bruises and cartilage injuries (RR = 6.18; = 0.003). (4) Conclusions: Bone bruises occur most frequently in the lateral compartment. Bone bruises resulting from ACL injuries are related to accompanying LM injuries and cartilage injuries. Knowing these associations and the frequency of injuries may allow orthopedic surgeons to promptly address ACL-related meniscus and cartilage injuries on MRI results and in future clinical practice.
PubMed: 38790382
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering11050515 -
Cureus Jul 2023Ramp lesions are a common occurrence in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. These lesions can be difficult to diagnose due to their concealed nature,... (Review)
Review
Ramp lesions are a common occurrence in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. These lesions can be difficult to diagnose due to their concealed nature, and their treatment is crucial due to the stabilizing function of the medial meniscocapsular region. The optimal treatment option for ramp lesions varies depending on the size and stability of the lesion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the best treatment option for ramp lesions based on the stability of the lesion, including no treatment, biological treatment, and arthroscopic repair. We hypothesize that stable lesions have a favorable prognosis with techniques that do not require the use of meniscal sutures. In contrast, unstable lesions require appropriate fixation, either through an anterior or posteromedial portal. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis with a level of evidence IV. The study used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for a systematic review of clinical studies reporting outcomes of ramp lesion treatment. The PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched using Mesh and non-Mesh terms related to ramp lesions, medial meniscus ramp lesions, and meniscocapsular injuries. The inclusion criteria encompassed clinical studies in English or Spanish that reported the treatment of ramp meniscal lesions, with a follow-up of at least six months and inclusion of functional results, clinical stability tests, radiological evaluation, or arthroscopic second look. The analysis included 13 studies with 1614 patients. Five studies distinguished between stable and unstable ramp lesions using different criteria (displacement or size) for assessment. Of the stable lesions, 90 cases received no treatment, 64 cases were treated biologically (debridement, edge-curettage, or trephination), and 728 lesions were repaired. There were 221 repaired unstable lesions. All different methods of repair were registered. In stable lesions, three studies were included in a network meta-analysis. The best-estimated treatment for stable lesions was biological (SUCRA 0.9), followed by repair (SUCRA 0.6), and no treatment (SUCRA 0). In unstable lesions, seven studies using International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) and 10 studies using Lysholm for functional outcomes showed significant improvement from preoperative to postoperative scores after repair, with no differences between repairing methods. We recommend simplifying the classification of ramp lesions as stable or unstable to determine treatment. Biological treatment is preferred for stable lesions rather than leaving them in situ. Unstable lesions, on the other hand, require repair, which has been associated with excellent functional outcomes and healing rates.
PubMed: 37435014
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41651 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Apr 2024Intact meniscus roots are a prerequisite for normal meniscal function, including even distribution of compressive forces across the knee joint. An injury to the root...
BACKGROUND
Intact meniscus roots are a prerequisite for normal meniscal function, including even distribution of compressive forces across the knee joint. An injury to the root disrupts the hoop strength of the meniscus and may lead to its extrusion and the development of osteoarthritis. A medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) is often thought to have a primary degenerative pathogenesis. However, there is mention of some cases of MMPRTs where the patients have a solely traumatic injury to a previously healthy meniscus.
PURPOSE
To describe a subpopulation of patients with traumatic MMPRT.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 5.
METHODS
The Web of Science database (www.webofscience.com) was queried using the Medical Subject Headings term "medial root tear." Articles were reviewed, and those evaluated for MMPRTs in a degenerative meniscus were excluded. A total of 25 articles describing cases of acute traumatic causes were included in this study. For these articles, the patient characteristics, injury mechanisms, and concomitant injuries evaluated were recorded and pooled.
RESULTS
The search revealed 660 articles, and 25 were selected for inclusion. A total of 113 patients with a traumatic MMPRT were identified and included in this review. The study population had a mean age of 27.1 years and a high share of men (64%). Also, this review displays how most patients with traumatic MMPRTs also suffer concomitant injuries (68%).
CONCLUSION
The findings in this review support our hypothesis that there is a unique subgroup with acute traumatic MMPRTs that have unique patient characteristics, injury mechanisms, and combined injuries, compared with previously published reviews on MMPRTs.
PubMed: 38600780
DOI: 10.1177/03635465241237254 -
Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and... Apr 2024To perform a systematic review on clinical and radiologic outcomes for meniscus tears treated nonoperatively with platelet-rich plasma (PRP). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review on clinical and radiologic outcomes for meniscus tears treated nonoperatively with platelet-rich plasma (PRP).
METHODS
A literature search was performed according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using keywords and Boolean operators in SCOPUS, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials in April 2023. Inclusion criteria were limited to Level I to IV human studies reporting on outcomes of meniscus tears treated nonoperatively with PRP.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies, consisting of 184 patients, were identified. There was 1 Level I study and 5 Level IV studies. Mean patient age was 47.8 ± 7.9 years, with 62% (n = 114/184) being female. The medial meniscus was treated in 95.7% (n = 157/164) of patients. Mean follow-up ranged from 75.9 days to 31.9 months. Meniscus tears were generally described as chronic, degenerative, or intrasubstance. In 4 studies, magnetic resonance imaging revealed variable improvement in meniscus grade with complete healing in 0% to 44% of patients and partial healing in 0% to 40% of patients. Four of 5 studies reported significant statistical improvement in pain from baseline to final follow-up. Studies reporting on clinical outcomes showed significant improvements Lysholm score (2 studies), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score total score (2 studies), and Tegner score (1 study). Successful return to sport occurred in 60% to 100% of patients. Two studies reported that most patients were either very satisfied or satisfied following treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of PRP injections for the treatment of meniscus tears led to variable results based on postoperative magnetic resonance evaluation and improvements in clinical outcomes, although the clinical significance remains unclear. The heterogeneity of PRP protocols, short-term follow-up, and lack of comparative studies limit findings.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
PubMed: 38525288
DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100916 -
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Jul 2024to provide a comprehensive overview of all the surgical techniques published in the literature for repairing meniscal ramp lesions focusing on the technical aspects and... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
to provide a comprehensive overview of all the surgical techniques published in the literature for repairing meniscal ramp lesions focusing on the technical aspects and the pros and cons of every procedure. Such lesions can be managed using various approaches, each of this with its specific advantages and disadvantages.
METHODS
Pubmed Central, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were systematically reviewed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for studies on surgical techniques for repairing meniscal ramp lesions through May 2023. Overall, 32 articles matched the selection criteria and were included in the study.
RESULTS
Debridement alone may be sufficient for small stable meniscal ramp lesions but, for tears in the menisco-capsular junction that affect the stability of the medial meniscus, it seems reasonable to repair it, even though the clinical results available in literature are contrasting. All-inside sutures through anterior portals seems to be an effective solution for meniscal ramp lesions with MTL tears. All-inside sutures through posteromedial portals are particularly useful for large meniscal ramp lesions, in which an inside-out suture can also be performed.
CONCLUSION
Meniscal ramp lesions can be managed using various approaches, each of this with its specific advantages and disadvantages. Further research is required to determine the optimal technique that can be considered as the gold standard and can provide the better results.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, systematic review.
PubMed: 38887657
DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.12037 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024This study delves into the cutting-edge field of deep learning techniques, particularly deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs), which have demonstrated unprecedented... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This study delves into the cutting-edge field of deep learning techniques, particularly deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs), which have demonstrated unprecedented potential in assisting radiologists and orthopedic surgeons in precisely identifying meniscal tears. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of deep learning models in recognizing, localizing, describing, and categorizing meniscal tears in magnetic resonance images (MRIs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was rigorously conducted, strictly following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Extensive searches were conducted on MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. All identified articles underwent a comprehensive risk of bias analysis. Predictive performance values were either extracted or calculated for quantitative analysis, including sensitivity and specificity. The meta-analysis was performed for all prediction models that identified the presence and location of meniscus tears.
RESULTS
This study's findings underscore that a range of deep learning models exhibit robust performance in detecting and classifying meniscal tears, in one case surpassing the expertise of musculoskeletal radiologists. Most studies in this review concentrated on identifying tears in the medial or lateral meniscus and even precisely locating tears-whether in the anterior or posterior horn-with exceptional accuracy, as demonstrated by AUC values ranging from 0.83 to 0.94.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on these findings, deep learning models have showcased significant potential in analyzing knee MR images by learning intricate details within images. They offer precise outcomes across diverse tasks, including segmenting specific anatomical structures and identifying pathological regions. Contributions: This study focused exclusively on DL models for identifying and localizing meniscus tears. It presents a meta-analysis that includes eight studies for detecting the presence of a torn meniscus and a meta-analysis of three studies with low heterogeneity that localize and classify the menisci. Another novelty is the analysis of arthroscopic surgery as ground truth. The quality of the studies was assessed against the CLAIM checklist, and the risk of bias was determined using the QUADAS-2 tool.
PubMed: 38893617
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14111090 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Mar 2024This systematic review aims to evaluate critically and synthesize the existing literature on the outcomes of meniscectomy versus meniscal repair for posterior medial...
This systematic review aims to evaluate critically and synthesize the existing literature on the outcomes of meniscectomy versus meniscal repair for posterior medial meniscus injuries, with a focus on osteoarthritis (OA) development. We sought to assess the incidence of OA following both treatment modalities, compare functional outcomes post-treatment, and identify factors influencing treatment choice, providing evidence-based recommendations for clinical decision-making. A comprehensive search strategy was employed across PubMed, Scopus, and Embase up until December 2023, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes included OA development, functional knee outcomes, and quality of life measures. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 298 patients. The systematic review revealed a significant association between meniscal repair and decreased progression of OA compared to meniscectomy. Meniscectomy patients demonstrated a 51.42% progression rate towards OA, significantly higher than the 21.28% observed in meniscal repair patients. Functional outcomes, as measured by the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, were notably better in the repair group, with average scores of 74.68 (IKDC) and 83.78 (Lysholm) compared to 67.55 (IKDC) and 74.56 (Lysholm) in the meniscectomy group. Furthermore, the rate of complete healing in the repair group was reported at 71.4%, as one study reported, indicating a favorable prognosis for meniscal preservation. However, these pooled data should be interpreted with consideration to the heterogeneity of the analyzed studies. Meniscal repair for posterior medial meniscus injuries is superior to meniscectomy in preventing OA development and achieving better functional outcomes and quality of life post-treatment. These findings strongly suggest the adoption of meniscal repair as the preferred treatment modality for such injuries, emphasizing the need for a paradigm shift in clinical practice towards preserving meniscal integrity to optimize patient outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Meniscectomy; Menisci, Tibial; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Quality of Life; Tibial Meniscus Injuries
PubMed: 38674215
DOI: 10.3390/medicina60040569 -
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology,... Oct 2023Meniscal injuries are common. Outside-in meniscal repair is one of the techniques advocated for the management of traumatic meniscal tears. This systematic review... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Meniscal injuries are common. Outside-in meniscal repair is one of the techniques advocated for the management of traumatic meniscal tears. This systematic review investigated the outcomes of the outside-in repair technique for the management of traumatic tears of the menisci. The outcomes of interest were to investigate whether PROMs improved and to evaluate the rate of complications.
METHODS
Following the 2020 PRISMA statement, in May 2023, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase were accessed with no time constraints. All the clinical investigations which reported data on meniscal repair using the outside-in technique were considered for inclusion. Only studies which reported data on acute traumatic meniscal tears in adults were considered. Only studies which reported a minimum of 24 months of follow-up were eligible.
RESULTS
Data from 458 patients were extracted. 34% (155 of 458) were women. 65% (297 of 458) of tears involved the medial meniscus. The mean operative time was 52.9 ± 13.6 min. Patients returned to their normal activities at 4.8 ± 0.8 months. At a mean of 67-month follow-up, all PROMs of interest improved: Tegner scale (P = 0.003), Lysholm score (P < 0.0001), International Knee Documentation Committee (P < 0.0001). 5.9% (27 of 458) of repairs were considered failures. Four of 186 (2.2%) patients experienced a re-injury, and 5 of 458 (1.1%) patients required re-operation.
CONCLUSION
Meniscal repair using the outside-in technique can be effectively performed to improve the quality of life and the activity level of patients with acute meniscal tears.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Female; Male; Quality of Life; Tibial Meniscus Injuries; Arthroscopy; Menisci, Tibial; Knee Joint; Knee Dislocation; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37314454
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-023-07475-z