Clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic repair versus conservative management for medial meniscus posterior root tears: A comparative cohort study.

IF 2.5 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Joint diseases and related surgery Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-04 DOI:10.52312/jdrs.2026.2306
Yusuf Onur Kızılay, İsmet Yalkın Çamurcu
{"title":"Clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic repair versus conservative management for medial meniscus posterior root tears: A comparative cohort study.","authors":"Yusuf Onur Kızılay, İsmet Yalkın Çamurcu","doi":"10.52312/jdrs.2026.2306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic repair versus conservative management in patients with medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Between January 2019 and December 2021, a total of 41 patients (9 males, 32 females; mean age: 49±12 years; range, 35 to 68 years) who underwent MMPRT repair and 123 patients (11 males, 112 females; mean age: 52±7 years; range, 26 to 74 years) who refused to undergo MMPRT repair and were managed conservatively were included in the study. Surgical candidates had neutral or mild varus alignment (≤5°), preserved joint space, and Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) Grade 1-2 osteoarthritis. Baseline K-L grades, Lysholm Knee Scores (LKS), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean follow-up was 32±11 (range, 24 to 60) months in the repair group and 28±6 (range, 24 to 48) months in the control group (p=0.025). Baseline LKS scores were similar between the groups (p=0.685), while IKDC scores were lower in the repair group (p=0.001). At final follow-up, the repair group showed higher LKS scores (78±19 vs. 65±32; p=0.021) and greater improvements in LKS (+46±25 vs. +36±38; p=0.046) and IKDC scores (+38±18 vs. +26±27; p=0.002). No repair patients progressed to K-L Grade 4, compared to 11% of controls (p=0.027). No repair patients required further surgery, whereas 20% of conservative patients did, including 7% undergoing arthroplasty.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Arthroscopic MMPRT repair yielded a more favorable functional improvement, no subsequent surgeries, and improved radiographic preservation compared to conservative management, supporting early surgical intervention in selected patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":73560,"journal":{"name":"Joint diseases and related surgery","volume":"37 1","pages":"218-228"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12788781/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint diseases and related surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52312/jdrs.2026.2306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic repair versus conservative management in patients with medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs).

Patients and methods: Between January 2019 and December 2021, a total of 41 patients (9 males, 32 females; mean age: 49±12 years; range, 35 to 68 years) who underwent MMPRT repair and 123 patients (11 males, 112 females; mean age: 52±7 years; range, 26 to 74 years) who refused to undergo MMPRT repair and were managed conservatively were included in the study. Surgical candidates had neutral or mild varus alignment (≤5°), preserved joint space, and Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) Grade 1-2 osteoarthritis. Baseline K-L grades, Lysholm Knee Scores (LKS), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were recorded.

Results: The mean follow-up was 32±11 (range, 24 to 60) months in the repair group and 28±6 (range, 24 to 48) months in the control group (p=0.025). Baseline LKS scores were similar between the groups (p=0.685), while IKDC scores were lower in the repair group (p=0.001). At final follow-up, the repair group showed higher LKS scores (78±19 vs. 65±32; p=0.021) and greater improvements in LKS (+46±25 vs. +36±38; p=0.046) and IKDC scores (+38±18 vs. +26±27; p=0.002). No repair patients progressed to K-L Grade 4, compared to 11% of controls (p=0.027). No repair patients required further surgery, whereas 20% of conservative patients did, including 7% undergoing arthroplasty.

Conclusion: Arthroscopic MMPRT repair yielded a more favorable functional improvement, no subsequent surgeries, and improved radiographic preservation compared to conservative management, supporting early surgical intervention in selected patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

关节镜下修复与保守治疗内侧半月板后根撕裂的临床和影像学结果:一项比较队列研究。
目的:本研究旨在比较关节镜下修复与保守治疗内侧半月板后根撕裂(MMPRTs)患者的临床和影像学结果。患者和方法:2019年1月至2021年12月,共纳入41例(男性9例,女性32例,平均年龄49±12岁,范围35 ~ 68岁)接受MMPRT修复的患者和123例(男性11例,女性112例,平均年龄52±7岁,范围26 ~ 74岁)拒绝接受MMPRT修复并进行保守治疗的患者。手术候选人有中性或轻度内翻对准(≤5°),保留关节间隙,kelgren - lawrence (K-L) 1-2级骨关节炎。记录基线K-L评分、Lysholm膝关节评分(LKS)和国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分。结果:修复组平均随访时间为32±11(范围,24 ~ 60)个月,对照组平均随访时间为28±6(范围,24 ~ 48)个月(p=0.025)。各组间LKS基线评分相似(p=0.685),修复组IKDC评分较低(p=0.001)。在最后的随访中,修复组的LKS评分更高(78±19比65±32,p=0.021), LKS评分(+46±25比+36±38,p=0.046)和IKDC评分(+38±18比+26±27,p=0.002)改善更大。与11%的对照组相比,没有修复患者进展到K-L 4级(p=0.027)。没有修复的患者需要进一步手术,而20%的保守患者需要进一步手术,其中7%的患者接受了关节置换术。结论:与保守治疗相比,关节镜下MMPRT修复获得了更有利的功能改善,无需后续手术,并且改善了影像学保存,支持对选定患者进行早期手术干预。
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
2.50
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书