The American journal of sports medicine · 2009
Comparison of arthroscopic medial meniscal suture repair techniques: inside-out versus all-inside repair.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Choi Nam-Hong, Kim Tae-Hyung, Victoroff Brian N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are no reports comparing meniscal healing between inside-out and all-inside repairs using sutures.
HYPOTHESIS: No difference in healing rate exists between meniscal repairs with inside-out and all-inside suture repair in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive patients underwent meniscal repairs of longitudinal tears of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. All-inside repair was attempted when the tears were located in the red-red zone or the ramp area of the meniscus. If a tear that was in the ramp area or red-red zone extended to the midbody of the meniscus, or if there was a tear in red-white zone, the inside-out repair technique was used. Fourteen patients had all-inside meniscal repairs, and 34 patients had inside-out meniscal repairs with absorbable sutures. Identical postoperative rehabilitation protocols were used. Postoperative evaluations included Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity levels, Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and KT-1000 arthrometer. Assessment of meniscal status was performed using joint line tenderness, McMurray test, and range of motion. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans were obtained on all patients.
RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 35.7 months. No patient had joint line tenderness or reported pain or clicking on McMurray test. There was no significant difference in range of motion between groups. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans demonstrated that 10 (71.4%) menisci were healed and 4 (28.6%) partially healed in the all-inside group; 24 (70.6%) menisci were healed and 10 (29.4%) partially healed in the inside-out group. There was no significant difference in meniscal healing between groups. There were no differences in Lachman test, KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side differences measurements, Lysholm scores, and Tegner activity scales. There was a significant difference in pivot-shift test between groups (P = .023). There were 2 complications associated with surgery. In the inside-out group, 1 patient required manipulation, and 2 patients had limited motion at final follow-up. Two patients in the inside-out group experienced transient saphenous nerve injury.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in meniscal healing between inside-out and all-inside repair techniques in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.
HYPOTHESIS: No difference in healing rate exists between meniscal repairs with inside-out and all-inside suture repair in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive patients underwent meniscal repairs of longitudinal tears of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. All-inside repair was attempted when the tears were located in the red-red zone or the ramp area of the meniscus. If a tear that was in the ramp area or red-red zone extended to the midbody of the meniscus, or if there was a tear in red-white zone, the inside-out repair technique was used. Fourteen patients had all-inside meniscal repairs, and 34 patients had inside-out meniscal repairs with absorbable sutures. Identical postoperative rehabilitation protocols were used. Postoperative evaluations included Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity levels, Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and KT-1000 arthrometer. Assessment of meniscal status was performed using joint line tenderness, McMurray test, and range of motion. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans were obtained on all patients.
RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 35.7 months. No patient had joint line tenderness or reported pain or clicking on McMurray test. There was no significant difference in range of motion between groups. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans demonstrated that 10 (71.4%) menisci were healed and 4 (28.6%) partially healed in the all-inside group; 24 (70.6%) menisci were healed and 10 (29.4%) partially healed in the inside-out group. There was no significant difference in meniscal healing between groups. There were no differences in Lachman test, KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side differences measurements, Lysholm scores, and Tegner activity scales. There was a significant difference in pivot-shift test between groups (P = .023). There were 2 complications associated with surgery. In the inside-out group, 1 patient required manipulation, and 2 patients had limited motion at final follow-up. Two patients in the inside-out group experienced transient saphenous nerve injury.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in meniscal healing between inside-out and all-inside repair techniques in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.