Early Meniscal Repair Leads to Higher Success Rates Than Delayed Meniscal Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 4.5 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
American Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1177/03635465241298619
Jelle P van der List, Stef Daniel, Ingmar Blom, Joyce L Benner
{"title":"Early Meniscal Repair Leads to Higher Success Rates Than Delayed Meniscal Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Jelle P van der List, Stef Daniel, Ingmar Blom, Joyce L Benner","doi":"10.1177/03635465241298619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been an increased interest in meniscus preservation over the last decade. Several risk factors for the failure of meniscal repair have been identified. However, the timing of meniscal repair has not been extensively assessed in the literature, and there is currently no high-quality evidence on the optimal timing of performing meniscal repair after an injury with regard to outcomes.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the role of the timing of meniscal repair on outcomes in the literature.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for studies comparing the outcomes of early versus delayed meniscal repair. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported outcomes within and after a time threshold (eg, within and after 3 weeks). Random-effects models were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 35 studies with 3556 patients and 3767 menisci were included (mean age, 27.5 years; 66% male; mean follow-up, 4.5 years). Most studies were level 3 or 4 evidence, and the overall quality was low. The failure rates of meniscal repair were 11.3% versus 24.1% within versus after 2 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 511 patients; odds ratio [OR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.22-1.16]; <i>P</i> = .11); 7.2% versus 15.3% within versus after 3 weeks, respectively (5 studies, 556 patients; OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.10-0.79]; <i>P</i> = .02); 15.7% versus 21.3% within versus after 6 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 746 patients; OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.33-1.18]; <i>P</i> = .15); and 10.2% versus 18.7% within versus after 8 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 652 patients; OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26-0.87]; <i>P</i> = .02); these were significant for 3 and 8 weeks. No differences were seen for within versus after 3 months (7 studies, 1305 patients; 22.4% vs 18.5%, respectively; OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.47-2.33]; <i>P</i> = .92).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The timing of meniscal surgery was correlated with the likelihood of success, and meniscal repair should preferably be performed within 8 weeks of the injury, with the earliest benefit at 3 weeks. Clinicians should take this into consideration when recommending operative treatment or initial nonoperative treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":55528,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"2761-2770"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241298619","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There has been an increased interest in meniscus preservation over the last decade. Several risk factors for the failure of meniscal repair have been identified. However, the timing of meniscal repair has not been extensively assessed in the literature, and there is currently no high-quality evidence on the optimal timing of performing meniscal repair after an injury with regard to outcomes.

Purpose: To assess the role of the timing of meniscal repair on outcomes in the literature.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods: The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for studies comparing the outcomes of early versus delayed meniscal repair. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported outcomes within and after a time threshold (eg, within and after 3 weeks). Random-effects models were used.

Results: A total of 35 studies with 3556 patients and 3767 menisci were included (mean age, 27.5 years; 66% male; mean follow-up, 4.5 years). Most studies were level 3 or 4 evidence, and the overall quality was low. The failure rates of meniscal repair were 11.3% versus 24.1% within versus after 2 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 511 patients; odds ratio [OR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.22-1.16]; P = .11); 7.2% versus 15.3% within versus after 3 weeks, respectively (5 studies, 556 patients; OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.10-0.79]; P = .02); 15.7% versus 21.3% within versus after 6 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 746 patients; OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.33-1.18]; P = .15); and 10.2% versus 18.7% within versus after 8 weeks, respectively (7 studies, 652 patients; OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26-0.87]; P = .02); these were significant for 3 and 8 weeks. No differences were seen for within versus after 3 months (7 studies, 1305 patients; 22.4% vs 18.5%, respectively; OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.47-2.33]; P = .92).

Conclusion: The timing of meniscal surgery was correlated with the likelihood of success, and meniscal repair should preferably be performed within 8 weeks of the injury, with the earliest benefit at 3 weeks. Clinicians should take this into consideration when recommending operative treatment or initial nonoperative treatment.

早期半月板修复比延迟半月板修复的成功率更高:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:在过去的十年中,人们对半月板的保存越来越感兴趣。已经确定了半月板修复失败的几个危险因素。然而,半月板修复的时机尚未在文献中得到广泛的评估,目前还没有关于损伤后半月板修复的最佳时机的高质量证据。目的:评估文献中半月板修复时间对预后的影响。研究设计:系统评价和荟萃分析;证据等级,4级。方法:于2023年10月检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆的数据库,比较早期和延迟半月板修复的结果。如果研究报告的结果在一个时间阈值内或之后(例如,在3周内或之后),则有资格纳入。采用随机效应模型。结果:共纳入35项研究,涉及3556例患者和3767例半月板(平均年龄27.5岁;男性66%;平均随访时间为4.5年)。大多数研究为3级或4级证据,总体质量较低。2周内半月板修复失败率分别为11.3%和24.1%(7项研究,511例患者;优势比[OR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.22-1.16];P = .11);3周内和3周后分别为7.2%和15.3%(5项研究,556例患者;Or为0.28 [95% ci, 0.10-0.79];P = .02);6周内和6周后分别为15.7%和21.3%(7项研究,746例患者;Or为0.63 [95% ci, 0.33-1.18];P = .15);8周内和8周后分别为10.2%和18.7%(7项研究,652例患者;Or为0.47 [95% ci, 0.26-0.87];P = .02);这些在第3周和第8周具有显著性。3个月内与3个月后无差异(7项研究,1305例患者;22.4% vs 18.5%;Or为1.04 [95% ci, 0.47-2.33];P = .92)。结论:半月板手术时机与成功的可能性相关,半月板修复最好在损伤后8周内进行,3周时获益最早。临床医生在推荐手术治疗或初始非手术治疗时应考虑到这一点。
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
9.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
425
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: An invaluable resource for the orthopaedic sports medicine community, _The American Journal of Sports Medicine_ is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, first published in 1972. It is the official publication of the [American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)](http://www.sportsmed.org/)! The journal acts as an important forum for independent orthopaedic sports medicine research and education, allowing clinical practitioners the ability to make decisions based on sound scientific information. This journal is a must-read for: * Orthopaedic Surgeons and Specialists * Sports Medicine Physicians * Physiatrists * Athletic Trainers * Team Physicians * And Physical Therapists
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信