Treatment Outcomes of Meniscal Root Tears: A Systematic Review
Jonah M. Stein, B.S., Michael Yayac, M.D., Evan J. Conte, M.D. and 1 more
Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation · 2020
doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2020.02.005 (opens in a new tab)
We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.
Abstract
Purpose: To report changes in outcomes for these 3 treatment options for meniscal root tears. Methods: We systematically searched databases including PubMed, SCOPUS, and ScienceDirect for relevant articles. Criteria from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute was used for a quality assessment of the included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to analyze changes in outcomes for meniscal repair. Results: Nineteen studies, 12 level III and 7 level IV, were included in this systematic review, with a total of 1086 patients. Conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) following partial meniscectomy ranged from 11% to 54%, 31% to 35% for nonoperative, conservative treatment, and 0% to 1% for meniscal repair. Studies comparing repair with either meniscectomy or conservative treatment found greater improvement and slower progression of Kellgren–Lawrence grade with meniscal repair. A meta-analysis of the studies included in the systematic review using forest plots showed repair to have the greatest mean difference for functional outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm Activity Scale) and the lowest change in follow-up joint space. Conclusions: In patients who experience meniscal root tears, meniscal repair may provide the greatest improvement in function and lowest risk of conversion to TKA when compared with partial meniscectomy or conservative methods. Partial meniscectomy appears to provide no benefit over conservative treatment, placing patients at a high risk of requiring TKA in the near future. However, future high-quality studies—both comparative studies and randomized trials—are needed to draw further conclusions and better impact treatment decision-making. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of level III and level IV evidence
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
References29
29 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.