Comparison of the effects between arthroscopic transtibial pullout technique and all-inside repair in the treatment of medial meniscus posterior root tears

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of orthopaedics Pub Date : 2024-12-16 DOI:10.1016/j.jor.2024.12.003

Jun Li , Pengfei Shen , Tao Zou , Wen Min , Yuxing Qu , Zikang Xie , Chengjian Wei

{"title":"Comparison of the effects between arthroscopic transtibial pullout technique and all-inside repair in the treatment of medial meniscus posterior root tears","authors":"Jun Li , Pengfei Shen , Tao Zou , Wen Min , Yuxing Qu , Zikang Xie , Chengjian Wei","doi":"10.1016/j.jor.2024.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) significantly contribute to knee dysfunction, leading to abnormal biomechanics and accelerated cartilage degeneration. Arthroscopic transtibial pullout and all-inside repair are two commonly used techniques for treating MMPRTs, each with unique advantages and limitations.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the clinical and functional outcomes of the transtibial pullout and all-inside repair techniques in the treatment of MMPRTs, with a focus on postoperative recovery, knee function, and complications.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>40 patients with MMPRTs were randomized to undergo either the transtibial pullout or all-inside repair technique. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner activity scale, Lysholm score, and active range of motion (AROM) of knee flexion, both before and after surgery. Data on operative time, time to ambulation, hospital stay duration, and complications were also collected.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Both surgical groups showed significant improvements in clinical outcomes postoperatively (p < 0.001). The transtibial group exhibited greater functional recovery, with IKDC, Tegner, and Lysholm scores improving by approximately 60 %, 110 %, and 68 %, respectively, compared to the all-inside group. However, complications were more frequent in the transtibial group, including three cases of wound healing issues and one infection, while the all-inside group had one case of deep vein thrombosis. No re-tears were observed in either group during follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both the transtibial pullout and all-inside repair techniques effectively restore knee function in patients with MMPRTs. While the transtibial pullout provides better functional outcomes, it is associated with a higher complication rate. The choice of surgical approach should consider patient-specific factors, including tear characteristics and overall health, to optimize results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of orthopaedics","volume":"65 ","pages":"Pages 78-85"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11718332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0972978X24004318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) significantly contribute to knee dysfunction, leading to abnormal biomechanics and accelerated cartilage degeneration. Arthroscopic transtibial pullout and all-inside repair are two commonly used techniques for treating MMPRTs, each with unique advantages and limitations.

Objective

To compare the clinical and functional outcomes of the transtibial pullout and all-inside repair techniques in the treatment of MMPRTs, with a focus on postoperative recovery, knee function, and complications.

Methods

40 patients with MMPRTs were randomized to undergo either the transtibial pullout or all-inside repair technique. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner activity scale, Lysholm score, and active range of motion (AROM) of knee flexion, both before and after surgery. Data on operative time, time to ambulation, hospital stay duration, and complications were also collected.

Results

Both surgical groups showed significant improvements in clinical outcomes postoperatively (p < 0.001). The transtibial group exhibited greater functional recovery, with IKDC, Tegner, and Lysholm scores improving by approximately 60 %, 110 %, and 68 %, respectively, compared to the all-inside group. However, complications were more frequent in the transtibial group, including three cases of wound healing issues and one infection, while the all-inside group had one case of deep vein thrombosis. No re-tears were observed in either group during follow-up.

Conclusion

Both the transtibial pullout and all-inside repair techniques effectively restore knee function in patients with MMPRTs. While the transtibial pullout provides better functional outcomes, it is associated with a higher complication rate. The choice of surgical approach should consider patient-specific factors, including tear characteristics and overall health, to optimize results.

查看原文本刊更多论文

关节镜下经胫骨拔出术与全内修复术治疗内侧半月板后根撕裂的疗效比较。

背景：内侧半月板后根撕裂（MMPRTs）是造成膝关节功能障碍的重要原因，会导致生物力学异常和软骨退化加速。关节镜下经胫骨拉出和全内侧修复是治疗内侧半月板后根撕裂的两种常用技术，每种技术都有其独特的优势和局限性：比较经胫骨牵拉术和全膝内侧修复术治疗MMPRTs的临床和功能效果，重点关注术后恢复、膝关节功能和并发症。方法：40例MMPRTs患者随机接受经胫骨牵拉术或全膝内侧修复术。手术前后均使用国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）评分、Tegner活动量表、Lysholm评分和膝关节屈曲主动活动范围（AROM）对临床结果进行评估。此外，还收集了手术时间、下地活动时间、住院时间和并发症等数据：结果：两组患者术后的临床效果均有明显改善（P＜0.05）：经胫骨牵引和全内侧修复技术都能有效恢复 MMPRT 患者的膝关节功能。虽然经胫骨牵引可提供更好的功能预后，但并发症发生率较高。选择手术方法时应考虑患者的具体因素，包括撕裂特征和整体健康状况，以达到最佳效果。

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

Journal of orthopaedics ORTHOPEDICS-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

6.70%

发文量

202

审稿时长

56 days

期刊介绍： Journal of Orthopaedics aims to be a leading journal in orthopaedics and contribute towards the improvement of quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research work and review articles related to different aspects of orthopaedics including Arthroplasty, Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, Trauma, Spine and Spinal deformities, Pediatric orthopaedics, limb reconstruction procedures, hand surgery, and orthopaedic oncology. It also publishes articles on continuing education, health-related information, case reports and letters to the editor. It is requested to note that the journal has an international readership and all submissions should be aimed at specifying something about the setting in which the work was conducted. Authors must also provide any specific reasons for the research and also provide an elaborate description of the results.