Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: 6-Year Follow-up Results From the MARS Cohort.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
MARS Group;, Fox Jake A, Huston Laura J, Haas Amanda K, Pennings Jacquelyn S, Allen Christina R, Cooper Daniel E, DeBerardino Thomas M, Dunn Warren R, Lantz Brett Brick A, Spindler Kurt P, Stuart Michael J, Amendola Annunziato Ned, Annunziata Christopher C, Arciero Robert A, Bach Bernard R, Baker Champ L, Bartolozzi Arthur R, Baumgarten Keith M, Berg Jeffrey H, Bernas Geoffrey A, Brockmeier Stephen F, Brophy Robert H, Bush-Joseph Charles A, Brad Butler V J, Carey James L, Carpenter James E, Cole Brian J, Cooper Jonathan M, Cox Charles L, Creighton R Alexander, David Tal S, Flanigan David C, Frederick Robert W, Ganley Theodore J, Gatt Charles J, Gecha Steven R, Giffin James Robert, Hame Sharon L, Hannafin Jo A, Harner Christopher D, Harris Norman Lindsay, Hechtman Keith S, Hershman Elliott B, Hoellrich Rudolf G, Johnson David C, Johnson Timothy S, Jones Morgan H, Kaeding Christopher C, Kamath Ganesh V, Klootwyk Thomas E, Levy Bruce A, Ma C Benjamin, Maiers G Peter, Marx Robert G, Matava Matthew J, Mathien Gregory M, McAllister David R, McCarty Eric C, McCormack Robert G, Miller Bruce S, Nissen Carl W, O'Neill Daniel F, Owens Brett D, Parker Richard D, Purnell Mark L, Ramappa Arun J, Rauh Michael A, Rettig Arthur C, Sekiya Jon K, Shea Kevin G, Sherman Orrin H, Slauterbeck James R, Smith Matthew V, Spang Jeffrey T, Svoboda Col Ret Steven J, Taft Timothy N, Tenuta Joachim J, Tingstad Edwin M, Vidal Armando F, Viskontas Darius G, White Richard A, Williams James S, Wolcott Michelle L, Wolf Brian R, York James J, Wright Rick W
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment.
RESULTS: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears (P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.