{"title":"半月板损伤的半月板修复术与半月板切除术的比较:一项回顾性队列研究的 3 年结果。","authors":"Ergali Nabiyev, Arnat Baizakov, Khadisha Kashikova, Ramazan Askerov, Zhenisbek Baubekov, Zhassulan Argynbayev, Kuanysh Baikubesov","doi":"10.47176/mjiri.37.120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Meniscal injury is a common problem that can lead to knee pain and dysfunction. Meniscal repair and meniscectomy are two treatment approaches for meniscal injury, but the latter may increase the risk of osteoarthritis. We aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes of a new method of meniscal suturing with meniscectomy among patients with meniscal injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study compared meniscal repair (treatment group) and meniscectomy (control group) in patients with meniscal injury. We evaluated the outcomes of 134 patients. under treatment with these approaches based on the Lysholm scale, which measures knee function and symptoms. The study used the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the proportion of patients with different outcomes and the Lysholm scale scores between the treatment and control groups. The study also conducted subgroup analyses based on gender and age using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at <i>P</i> < 0.05 for all statistical tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The treatment group had a higher proportion of patients with excellent results, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.2% in the treatment group vs. 10.0% in the control group, <i>P</i> = 0.223). However, a comparative analysis of the proportion of patients with good results revealed statistically significant differences, with 67.2% of patients in the treatment group achieving good outcomes compared to 45.7% in the control group (χ2 = 6,256, df = 1 <i>P</i> = 0.012, HR 1,470 95%CI 1,081-1,999). The average score on the Lysholm scale was significantly higher in the treatment group (87.48, 95% CI 85.1-89.7, SD = 9.2) compared to the control group (81.73, 95% CI 78.4-84.9, SD = 13.7) (U = 1609, Z = -2.813, <i>P</i> = 0.005). Subgroup analyses based on gender and age also showed significant differences in the Lysholm scale scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study demonstrates that meniscal repair is more effective than meniscectomy in improving patient outcomes, with a higher proportion of patients achieving excellent and good results and higher scores on the Lysholm scale. These findings support the use of meniscal repair as a preferred treatment approach for patients with meniscal injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":18361,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10744140/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meniscal Repair Compared to Meniscectomy for Meniscal Injury: 3-year Outcomes from a Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Ergali Nabiyev, Arnat Baizakov, Khadisha Kashikova, Ramazan Askerov, Zhenisbek Baubekov, Zhassulan Argynbayev, Kuanysh Baikubesov\",\"doi\":\"10.47176/mjiri.37.120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Meniscal injury is a common problem that can lead to knee pain and dysfunction. Meniscal repair and meniscectomy are two treatment approaches for meniscal injury, but the latter may increase the risk of osteoarthritis. We aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes of a new method of meniscal suturing with meniscectomy among patients with meniscal injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study compared meniscal repair (treatment group) and meniscectomy (control group) in patients with meniscal injury. We evaluated the outcomes of 134 patients. under treatment with these approaches based on the Lysholm scale, which measures knee function and symptoms. The study used the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the proportion of patients with different outcomes and the Lysholm scale scores between the treatment and control groups. The study also conducted subgroup analyses based on gender and age using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at <i>P</i> < 0.05 for all statistical tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The treatment group had a higher proportion of patients with excellent results, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.2% in the treatment group vs. 10.0% in the control group, <i>P</i> = 0.223). However, a comparative analysis of the proportion of patients with good results revealed statistically significant differences, with 67.2% of patients in the treatment group achieving good outcomes compared to 45.7% in the control group (χ2 = 6,256, df = 1 <i>P</i> = 0.012, HR 1,470 95%CI 1,081-1,999). The average score on the Lysholm scale was significantly higher in the treatment group (87.48, 95% CI 85.1-89.7, SD = 9.2) compared to the control group (81.73, 95% CI 78.4-84.9, SD = 13.7) (U = 1609, Z = -2.813, <i>P</i> = 0.005). Subgroup analyses based on gender and age also showed significant differences in the Lysholm scale scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study demonstrates that meniscal repair is more effective than meniscectomy in improving patient outcomes, with a higher proportion of patients achieving excellent and good results and higher scores on the Lysholm scale. These findings support the use of meniscal repair as a preferred treatment approach for patients with meniscal injuries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10744140/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.37.120\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.37.120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:半月板损伤是导致膝关节疼痛和功能障碍的常见问题。半月板修复术和半月板切除术是治疗半月板损伤的两种方法,但后者可能会增加骨关节炎的风险。我们旨在比较一种新的半月板缝合方法和半月板切除术对半月板损伤患者的 3 年疗效:这项回顾性队列研究比较了半月板损伤患者的半月板修复术(治疗组)和半月板切除术(对照组)。我们根据测量膝关节功能和症状的 Lysholm 量表,评估了 134 名接受上述方法治疗的患者的疗效。研究使用了卡方检验和曼-惠特尼U检验来比较治疗组和对照组之间不同结果的患者比例和Lysholm量表评分。研究还使用曼-惠特尼 U 检验对性别和年龄进行了分组分析。所有统计检验的显著性水平均定为 P <0.05:结果:治疗组中获得极佳疗效的患者比例更高,但差异无统计学意义(治疗组为 17.2%,对照组为 10.0%,P = 0.223)。然而,对获得良好结果的患者比例进行比较分析后发现,治疗组获得良好结果的患者比例为 67.2%,而对照组为 45.7%,差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 6,256, df = 1 P = 0.012, HR 1,470 95%CI 1,081-1,999)。与对照组(81.73,95% CI 78.4-84.9,SD = 13.7)相比,治疗组的 Lysholm 量表平均得分明显更高(87.48,95% CI 85.1-89.7,SD = 9.2)(U = 1609,Z = -2.813,P = 0.005)。基于性别和年龄的分组分析也显示,Lysholm量表评分存在显著差异:研究表明,在改善患者预后方面,半月板修复术比半月板切除术更有效,获得优秀和良好效果的患者比例更高,Lysholm量表评分也更高。这些研究结果支持将半月板修复术作为半月板损伤患者的首选治疗方法。
Meniscal Repair Compared to Meniscectomy for Meniscal Injury: 3-year Outcomes from a Retrospective Cohort Study.
Background: Meniscal injury is a common problem that can lead to knee pain and dysfunction. Meniscal repair and meniscectomy are two treatment approaches for meniscal injury, but the latter may increase the risk of osteoarthritis. We aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes of a new method of meniscal suturing with meniscectomy among patients with meniscal injury.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared meniscal repair (treatment group) and meniscectomy (control group) in patients with meniscal injury. We evaluated the outcomes of 134 patients. under treatment with these approaches based on the Lysholm scale, which measures knee function and symptoms. The study used the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the proportion of patients with different outcomes and the Lysholm scale scores between the treatment and control groups. The study also conducted subgroup analyses based on gender and age using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05 for all statistical tests.
Results: The treatment group had a higher proportion of patients with excellent results, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.2% in the treatment group vs. 10.0% in the control group, P = 0.223). However, a comparative analysis of the proportion of patients with good results revealed statistically significant differences, with 67.2% of patients in the treatment group achieving good outcomes compared to 45.7% in the control group (χ2 = 6,256, df = 1 P = 0.012, HR 1,470 95%CI 1,081-1,999). The average score on the Lysholm scale was significantly higher in the treatment group (87.48, 95% CI 85.1-89.7, SD = 9.2) compared to the control group (81.73, 95% CI 78.4-84.9, SD = 13.7) (U = 1609, Z = -2.813, P = 0.005). Subgroup analyses based on gender and age also showed significant differences in the Lysholm scale scores.
Conclusion: The study demonstrates that meniscal repair is more effective than meniscectomy in improving patient outcomes, with a higher proportion of patients achieving excellent and good results and higher scores on the Lysholm scale. These findings support the use of meniscal repair as a preferred treatment approach for patients with meniscal injuries.