Filippo Migliorini1, Francesco Oliva2, Jörg Eschweiler3, Francesco Cuozzo2, Frank Hildebrand3, Nicola Maffulli2,4,5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. migliorini.md@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy. 3. Department of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. 4. School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Faculty of Medicine, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 7QB, England. 5. Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Mile End Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, E1 4DG, London, England.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is unclear whether the results of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) are comparable to a structured physical therapy (PT). This systematic review investigated efficacy of APM in the management of symptomatic meniscal damages in middle aged patients. Current available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared APM performed in isolation or combined with physical therapy versus sham arthroscopy or isolated physical therapy were considered in the present systematic review. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. All the level I RCTs which investigated the efficacy of AMP were accessed. Studies which included elderlies with severe OA were not eligible, nor were those in which APM was combined with other surgical intervention or in patients with unstable knee or with ligaments insufficiency. The risk of bias was assessed using the software Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). To rate the quality of evidence of collected outcomes, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used. RESULTS: Data from 17 studies (2037 patients) were collected. 48.5% (988 of 2037 patients) were women. The mean age of the patients was 52.7 ± 3.9 years, the mean BMI 27.0 ± 1.3 kg/m2. The current evidence suggests no difference in functional PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), clinical PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), pain (quality of the evidence: high), quality of life (quality of the evidence: high), physical performance measures (quality of the evidence: moderate), and OA progression (quality of the evidence: moderate). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of APM in adults with degenerative and nonobstructive meniscal symptoms are limited. The current evidence reports similarity in the outcome between APM and PT. Further long-term RCTs are required to investigate whether APM and PT produce comparable results using validated and reliable PROMs. Moreover, future RCTs should investigate whether patients who might benefit from APM exist, clarifying proper indications and outcomes. High quality investigations are strongly required to establish the optimal PT regimes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.
PURPOSE: It is unclear whether the results of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) are comparable to a structured physical therapy (PT). This systematic review investigated efficacy of APM in the management of symptomatic meniscal damages in middle aged patients. Current available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared APM performed in isolation or combined with physical therapy versus sham arthroscopy or isolated physical therapy were considered in the present systematic review. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. All the level I RCTs which investigated the efficacy of AMP were accessed. Studies which included elderlies with severe OA were not eligible, nor were those in which APM was combined with other surgical intervention or in patients with unstable knee or with ligaments insufficiency. The risk of bias was assessed using the software Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). To rate the quality of evidence of collected outcomes, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used. RESULTS: Data from 17 studies (2037 patients) were collected. 48.5% (988 of 2037 patients) were women. The mean age of the patients was 52.7 ± 3.9 years, the mean BMI 27.0 ± 1.3 kg/m2. The current evidence suggests no difference in functional PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), clinical PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), pain (quality of the evidence: high), quality of life (quality of the evidence: high), physical performance measures (quality of the evidence: moderate), and OA progression (quality of the evidence: moderate). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of APM in adults with degenerative and nonobstructive meniscal symptoms are limited. The current evidence reports similarity in the outcome between APM and PT. Further long-term RCTs are required to investigate whether APM and PT produce comparable results using validated and reliable PROMs. Moreover, future RCTs should investigate whether patients who might benefit from APM exist, clarifying proper indications and outcomes. High quality investigations are strongly required to establish the optimal PT regimes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.
Authors: Howard Balshem; Mark Helfand; Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan Norris; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Joshua P Castle; Lafi S Khalil; Muhammad J Abbas; Stephanie DeBolle; Marissa Tandron; Austin G Cross; Guillermo A Rodriguez; Kelechi R Okoroha Journal: J Orthop Date: 2022-04-14
Authors: Simon G F Abram; Sally Hopewell; Andrew Paul Monk; Lee E Bayliss; David J Beard; Andrew J Price Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: John W Belk; Matthew J Kraeutler; Stephen G Thon; Connor P Littlefield; John H Smith; Eric C McCarty Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-06-17
Authors: Miyoung Choi; Su Jung Lee; Chan Mi Park; Seungeun Ryoo; Sunghyun Kim; Ju Yeon Jang; Hyun Ah Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 2.153