Biomechanical Properties of Meniscal Repair Versus Meniscectomy for Horizontal Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review

Christian A. Pearsall, Sohil S. Desai, Christian Athanasian, Dana P. Piasecki, Bryan M. Saltzman, Hasani Swindell, David P. Trofa
{"title":"Biomechanical Properties of Meniscal Repair Versus Meniscectomy for Horizontal Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review","authors":"Christian A. Pearsall, Sohil S. Desai, Christian Athanasian, Dana P. Piasecki, Bryan M. Saltzman, Hasani Swindell, David P. Trofa","doi":"10.1177/03635465241279844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Limited biomechanical evidence exists describing how horizontal meniscus tears (HMTs), meniscal repair (MR), and meniscectomy alter the knee's biomechanical environment.Purpose:To evaluate changes in knee contact mechanics following HMTs, MR, and meniscectomy.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 5.Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for biomechanical cadaveric studies of HMTs up to January 16, 2023, using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies that (1) did not examine MRs or meniscectomies, (2) did not report contact area (CA) or pressure, (3) involved concomitant injuries (eg, anterior cruciate ligament tear), (4) were nonbiomechanical studies (eg, review, technique, and clinical), and (5) were non-English language articles were excluded. The endpoints were peak contact pressure (PCP) and mean CA.Results:Out of 1526 initial results, 6 studies were included for final review. PCP and CA were measured in 59 intact menisci, 59 HMTs, 59 partial meniscectomies (PM), 59 complete meniscectomies (CM), and 33 MR. Among all HMTs versus the intact state, pooled PCP increased by 14.2%, and pooled CA decreased by 7.1%. Among all PMs versus the intact state, 4 of 6 studies found significantly increased PCP (27.1%), and 5 found significantly reduced CA (22.1%). Among all CMs versus the intact state, all 6 studies found significantly increased PCP (54.5%), and 5 found significantly reduced CA (33%). Among the 3 studies directly comparing PM to CM, 2 studies found PM to have significantly smaller increases in PCP (23.3% vs 52.4%) and significantly smaller reductions in CA (16.7% vs 28.1%) from the intact state.) The 3 studies evaluating MR versus the intact state found no significant difference in PCP or CA.Conclusion:After an HMT, MR had the smallest deviations in contact mechanics; only MR restored contact mechanics to the uninjured state. These findings support MR's superiority, illustrate that maintaining contact mechanics requires preserving meniscal tissue, and are consistent with clinical evidence. More clinical comparisons are needed to understand the differences among treatments.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241279844","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:Limited biomechanical evidence exists describing how horizontal meniscus tears (HMTs), meniscal repair (MR), and meniscectomy alter the knee's biomechanical environment.Purpose:To evaluate changes in knee contact mechanics following HMTs, MR, and meniscectomy.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 5.Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for biomechanical cadaveric studies of HMTs up to January 16, 2023, using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies that (1) did not examine MRs or meniscectomies, (2) did not report contact area (CA) or pressure, (3) involved concomitant injuries (eg, anterior cruciate ligament tear), (4) were nonbiomechanical studies (eg, review, technique, and clinical), and (5) were non-English language articles were excluded. The endpoints were peak contact pressure (PCP) and mean CA.Results:Out of 1526 initial results, 6 studies were included for final review. PCP and CA were measured in 59 intact menisci, 59 HMTs, 59 partial meniscectomies (PM), 59 complete meniscectomies (CM), and 33 MR. Among all HMTs versus the intact state, pooled PCP increased by 14.2%, and pooled CA decreased by 7.1%. Among all PMs versus the intact state, 4 of 6 studies found significantly increased PCP (27.1%), and 5 found significantly reduced CA (22.1%). Among all CMs versus the intact state, all 6 studies found significantly increased PCP (54.5%), and 5 found significantly reduced CA (33%). Among the 3 studies directly comparing PM to CM, 2 studies found PM to have significantly smaller increases in PCP (23.3% vs 52.4%) and significantly smaller reductions in CA (16.7% vs 28.1%) from the intact state.) The 3 studies evaluating MR versus the intact state found no significant difference in PCP or CA.Conclusion:After an HMT, MR had the smallest deviations in contact mechanics; only MR restored contact mechanics to the uninjured state. These findings support MR's superiority, illustrate that maintaining contact mechanics requires preserving meniscal tissue, and are consistent with clinical evidence. More clinical comparisons are needed to understand the differences among treatments.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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