M Alessio-Mazzola1, S Lovisolo2, A G Capello1, A Zanirato1, F Chiarlone1, M Formica1, L Felli1. 1. Orthopedic Clinic, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy. 2. Orthopedic Clinic, Department of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy. lovisolo.stefano@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature and to assess the clinical outcomes following meniscal ramp lesion treatment and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. A consensus of the treatment of this pattern of tears is still lacking. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed with a comprehensive search on Medline through PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases. The PRISMA 2009 flowchart and checklist were considered to edit the review. The included studies were evaluated based on indications, management, surgical technique and clinical results. RESULTS: Seven studies (two level II and five level IV evidence) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 509 patients. The overall main follow-up was 23.6 months. Treatment failure occurred in 8.3% of patients receiving ACL repair and ramp lesion treatment. The repair of ramp lesion is the most used approach in the literature. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of literature focused on the management of ramp lesion and ACL injuries. The repair resulted in the most used approach with good clinical results and low failure rate. However, further high-quality studies evaluating the long-term outcomes of different surgical strategies are needed.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature and to assess the clinical outcomes following meniscal ramp lesion treatment and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. A consensus of the treatment of this pattern of tears is still lacking. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed with a comprehensive search on Medline through PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases. The PRISMA 2009 flowchart and checklist were considered to edit the review. The included studies were evaluated based on indications, management, surgical technique and clinical results. RESULTS: Seven studies (two level II and five level IV evidence) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 509 patients. The overall main follow-up was 23.6 months. Treatment failure occurred in 8.3% of patients receiving ACL repair and ramp lesion treatment. The repair of ramp lesion is the most used approach in the literature. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of literature focused on the management of ramp lesion and ACL injuries. The repair resulted in the most used approach with good clinical results and low failure rate. However, further high-quality studies evaluating the long-term outcomes of different surgical strategies are needed.
Authors: Robert L Parisien; Max Shin; Lauren M Boden; Stephanie Y Jo; Lisa Victorius; Brian J Sennett; Miltiadis H Zgonis Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-04-22