Daniel Y T Yeo1, Fairuz Suhaimi2, David A Parker3. 1. Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, Chatswood, Australia. Electronic address: yongtze28@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Sungai Buloh Campus, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam, Malaysia. 3. Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, Chatswood, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify factors that affect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and failure rates after arthroscopic meniscal repair. METHODS: Embase, Embase Classic, and MEDLINE were searched on August 7, 2015, December 23, 2016, and March 11, 2018, for factors associated with PROMs and failure rates after arthroscopic meniscal repair. We excluded studies that (1) were non-English language, (2) did not use human patients, (3) were nonclinical, (4) did not analyze for factors that predicted PROMs or failure rates, and (5) were below Level IV evidence. Studies were graded into higher and lower quality using the Downs and Black scale. RESULTS: A total of 34 articles met our criteria, and 32 were graded. We identified 16 articles as higher quality. Among higher-quality studies, factors that significantly predicted reduced failure rates were concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) (n = 6) and reduced tear complexity (n = 4). Factors that did not significantly impact failure rates were side of repair (n = 8), sex (n = 7), time from injury to surgery (n = 7), age (n = 7), rim width (n = 6), and tear length (n = 5). Factors predicting better PROMs were time from injury to surgery of less than 3 months (n = 1), Outerbridge scores below grade 3 or 4 (n = 2), and reduced varus alignment (n = 2). Factors that did not significantly impact PROMs were equipment used (n = 3) and concurrent ACLR (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Factors affecting failure rates and PROMs after arthroscopic meniscal repair were identified. However, more and higher-quality studies supported concurrent ACLR and less complex tears as predictors of lower failure rates. PROMs were negatively affected by a longer time from injury to surgery, higher Outerbridge scores, and greater varus alignment before surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies. Crown
PURPOSE: To identify factors that affect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and failure rates after arthroscopic meniscal repair. METHODS: Embase, Embase Classic, and MEDLINE were searched on August 7, 2015, December 23, 2016, and March 11, 2018, for factors associated with PROMs and failure rates after arthroscopic meniscal repair. We excluded studies that (1) were non-English language, (2) did not use humanpatients, (3) were nonclinical, (4) did not analyze for factors that predicted PROMs or failure rates, and (5) were below Level IV evidence. Studies were graded into higher and lower quality using the Downs and Black scale. RESULTS: A total of 34 articles met our criteria, and 32 were graded. We identified 16 articles as higher quality. Among higher-quality studies, factors that significantly predicted reduced failure rates were concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) (n = 6) and reduced tear complexity (n = 4). Factors that did not significantly impact failure rates were side of repair (n = 8), sex (n = 7), time from injury to surgery (n = 7), age (n = 7), rim width (n = 6), and tear length (n = 5). Factors predicting better PROMs were time from injury to surgery of less than 3 months (n = 1), Outerbridge scores below grade 3 or 4 (n = 2), and reduced varus alignment (n = 2). Factors that did not significantly impact PROMs were equipment used (n = 3) and concurrent ACLR (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Factors affecting failure rates and PROMs after arthroscopic meniscal repair were identified. However, more and higher-quality studies supported concurrent ACLR and less complex tears as predictors of lower failure rates. PROMs were negatively affected by a longer time from injury to surgery, higher Outerbridge scores, and greater varus alignment before surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies. Crown
Authors: Erick M Marigi; Sara E Till; Jory N Wasserburger; Anna K Reinholz; Aaron J Krych; Michael J Stuart Journal: Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med Date: 2022-04-30
Authors: Allicia Ostoposides Imada; James J O'Hara; Ignacio L Proumen; Pablo S Molinari; Daniel C Wascher; Dustin L Richter; Robert C Schenck Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: L M Gerritsen; T J N van der Lelij; S Keereweer; P B A A van Driel; P van Schie; M Fiocco; E R A van Arkel; R G Zuurmond Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.114