Using a simple angiocath instead of scorpion suture passer in transtibial pullout repair of the meniscal root tear

IF 0.2 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
Mehdi Moghtadaei, Abolfazl Bagherifard, Hooman Yahyazadeh, Mehdi Mohammadpour, Khazar Adibmoradi Langroudi, Ali Mousapour
{"title":"Using a simple angiocath instead of scorpion suture passer in transtibial pullout repair of the meniscal root tear","authors":"Mehdi Moghtadaei, Abolfazl Bagherifard, Hooman Yahyazadeh, Mehdi Mohammadpour, Khazar Adibmoradi Langroudi, Ali Mousapour","doi":"10.1097/bco.0000000000001235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Suture pullout during arthroscopic transtibial pullout repair of the meniscal root tear is generally performed using a Scorpion. In this study, we introduce a suture passing technique using a simple angiocath and compare its results with that of a Scorpion. Patients and Methods: In a retrospective series, 28 patients for whom an angiocath was used to pass the suture and 28 group-matched patients for whom a Scorpion was used were included. The outcomes of the patients were evaluated radiologically by assessment of ghost sign, cleft sign, and meniscal extrusion in knee MRI, and clinically by the assessment of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm scale, and VAS for pain, which were obtained in the last follow-up. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different. After the operation, no patient had a positive ghost or cleft sign. The change of meniscal extrusion was not statistically different between the two groups (P=0.24). At the last follow-up, the mean Lysholm scale was 84.7±7.3 in the case group and 83.7±7.4 in the control group (P=0.61). The mean IKDC score was 84.6±6.8 in the case group and 85.3±4.9 in the control group (P=0.33). The mean VAS for pain was 3.2±0.9 in the case group and 3.3±0.9 in the control group (P=0.44). Conclusion: Using an angiocath to pass the suture in transtibial pullout repair is a cost-effective and efficient substitute for the Scorpion suture passer and could be used alternatively. Level of evidence: Level IV.","PeriodicalId":10732,"journal":{"name":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/bco.0000000000001235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Suture pullout during arthroscopic transtibial pullout repair of the meniscal root tear is generally performed using a Scorpion. In this study, we introduce a suture passing technique using a simple angiocath and compare its results with that of a Scorpion. Patients and Methods: In a retrospective series, 28 patients for whom an angiocath was used to pass the suture and 28 group-matched patients for whom a Scorpion was used were included. The outcomes of the patients were evaluated radiologically by assessment of ghost sign, cleft sign, and meniscal extrusion in knee MRI, and clinically by the assessment of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm scale, and VAS for pain, which were obtained in the last follow-up. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different. After the operation, no patient had a positive ghost or cleft sign. The change of meniscal extrusion was not statistically different between the two groups (P=0.24). At the last follow-up, the mean Lysholm scale was 84.7±7.3 in the case group and 83.7±7.4 in the control group (P=0.61). The mean IKDC score was 84.6±6.8 in the case group and 85.3±4.9 in the control group (P=0.33). The mean VAS for pain was 3.2±0.9 in the case group and 3.3±0.9 in the control group (P=0.44). Conclusion: Using an angiocath to pass the suture in transtibial pullout repair is a cost-effective and efficient substitute for the Scorpion suture passer and could be used alternatively. Level of evidence: Level IV.
用简单血管导管代替蝎形缝线在经胫拉拔修复半月板根撕裂中的应用
背景:在关节镜下经胫骨拔出修复半月板根撕裂时,通常使用Scorpion进行缝线拔出。在这项研究中,我们介绍了一种使用简单血管导管的缝合技术,并将其结果与蝎子的结果进行了比较。患者和方法:回顾性分析了28例使用血管导管进行缝合的患者和28例使用Scorpion进行缝合的组匹配患者。放射学上通过评估膝关节MRI上的鬼征、裂征和半月板挤压来评估患者的预后,临床上通过评估国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分、Lysholm评分和疼痛VAS评分来评估患者的预后,这些评分在最后一次随访中获得。结果:两组患者的基线特征无显著差异。手术后,没有患者出现阳性鬼影或裂征。两组间半月板挤压变化无统计学差异(P =0.24)。末次随访时,病例组Lysholm评分平均为84.7±7.3分,对照组为83.7±7.4分(P =0.61)。病例组平均IKDC评分为84.6±6.8分,对照组为85.3±4.9分(P =0.33)。病例组疼痛VAS评分平均为3.2±0.9,对照组为3.3±0.9 (P =0.44)。结论:在经胫拉拔修复术中,使用血管导管通过缝线是一种经济、有效的方法,可替代Scorpion缝合器。证据等级:四级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Current Orthopaedic Practice is a peer-reviewed, general orthopaedic journal that translates clinical research into best practices for diagnosing, treating, and managing musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical research, invited special focus reviews and general reviews, as well as original articles on innovations in practice, case reports, point/counterpoint, and diagnostic imaging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信