Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Fixation Technique Type Does Not Meaningfully Impact Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes.

IF 6.9 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Benjamin Miltenberg, Gaston Davis, Harrison S Fellheimer, Paul Tjoumakaris, William L Johns, Cooper Roslund, Kevin B Freedman
{"title":"Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Fixation Technique Type Does Not Meaningfully Impact Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes.","authors":"Benjamin Miltenberg, Gaston Davis, Harrison S Fellheimer, Paul Tjoumakaris, William L Johns, Cooper Roslund, Kevin B Freedman","doi":"10.1002/arj.70667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To systematically review the current literature and investigate whether there are any significant differences in outcome between fixation techniques for medial or lateral meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Reported data on demographics, location of MAT, graft fixation techniques, meniscal extrusion, graft failure, and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were extracted and tabulated. The results were analyzed, and subgroup analysis was performed to isolate the results of medial and lateral MAT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven articles met inclusion criteria without meeting exclusion criteria. In total, there were 1622 individual cases of MAT with 1125 lateral MATs, 80 medial MATs, and 417 MATs where compartment was not specified. MAT was associated with improved PROs regardless of fixation technique. Few studies directly compare different fixation techniques for MAT, but, based on the available data, there is no clear advantage of any fixation technique for medial or lateral MAT with regard to PROs or graft failure. However, meniscal extrusion appears to be greater for soft-tissue only fixation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With regard to PROs and failure rates, there is no clear advantage of any fixation technique for medial or lateral MAT; however, high-quality comparative studies are limited. Therefore, surgeons can weigh other options such as concomitant procedures and technical familiarity when determining the fixation method for medial or lateral MAT.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/arj.70667","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically review the current literature and investigate whether there are any significant differences in outcome between fixation techniques for medial or lateral meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT).

Methods: A systematic search was conducted of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Reported data on demographics, location of MAT, graft fixation techniques, meniscal extrusion, graft failure, and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were extracted and tabulated. The results were analyzed, and subgroup analysis was performed to isolate the results of medial and lateral MAT.

Results: Twenty-seven articles met inclusion criteria without meeting exclusion criteria. In total, there were 1622 individual cases of MAT with 1125 lateral MATs, 80 medial MATs, and 417 MATs where compartment was not specified. MAT was associated with improved PROs regardless of fixation technique. Few studies directly compare different fixation techniques for MAT, but, based on the available data, there is no clear advantage of any fixation technique for medial or lateral MAT with regard to PROs or graft failure. However, meniscal extrusion appears to be greater for soft-tissue only fixation.

Conclusions: With regard to PROs and failure rates, there is no clear advantage of any fixation technique for medial or lateral MAT; however, high-quality comparative studies are limited. Therefore, surgeons can weigh other options such as concomitant procedures and technical familiarity when determining the fixation method for medial or lateral MAT.

Level of evidence: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.

半月板同种异体移植固定技术类型对患者报告的结果没有显著影响:临床结果的系统回顾。
目的:系统地回顾现有文献,探讨内侧或外侧半月板同种异体移植(MAT)的固定技术在结果上是否有显著差异。方法:系统检索PubMed、Scopus和Embase。已报道的人口统计学数据、MAT位置、移植物固定技术、半月板挤压、移植物失败和术后患者报告的结果(PROs)被提取并制成表格。对结果进行分析,并进行亚组分析以分离内侧和外侧mat的结果。结果:27篇文章符合纳入标准,但不符合排除标准。总共有1622例MAT病例,其中1125例为外侧垫,80例为内侧垫,417例为未指定腔室的垫。无论采用何种固定技术,MAT均与pro改善相关。很少有研究直接比较MAT的不同固定技术,但是,根据现有数据,对于PROs或移植物失败,内侧或外侧MAT的固定技术没有明显的优势。然而,半月板挤压似乎更大的软组织固定。结论:关于PROs和失败率,对于内侧或外侧MAT,任何固定技术都没有明显的优势;然而,高质量的比较研究是有限的。因此,在确定内侧或外侧mat的固定方法时,外科医生可以权衡其他选择,如伴随手术和技术熟悉程度。证据等级:III级,对II级和III级研究的系统评价。
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
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
×
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