重新定义失败:半月板修复失败结果的标准。

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Saygin Kamaci, James Lee Pace
{"title":"重新定义失败:半月板修复失败结果的标准。","authors":"Saygin Kamaci, James Lee Pace","doi":"10.1007/s12178-025-09971-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Meniscus repair plays a critical role in preserving knee function and delaying degenerative changes after a meniscus tear. Despite advancements in surgical techniques, there remains significant variability in how outcomes are defined and reported. This review examines the evolving interplay between traditional metrics of success such as reoperation rates, radiographic healing, etc., and the more subjective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Recent findings highlight the discrepancies between radiographic healing, symptomatic relief, and functional improvement. While reoperation rates remain a widely used failure criterion, they do not account for patients who avoid revision surgery despite persistent symptoms. MRI assessments can detect incomplete healing, but imaging abnormalities do not always correlate with clinical dysfunction. PROMs and return-to-sport (RTS) rates offer valuable insight into functional recovery, yet they vary across studies and may not always reflect anatomical failure. Emerging consensus supports a dual model: anatomical failure, which reflects structural compromise seen on imaging or second-look arthroscopy, and clinical failure, which includes persistent symptoms, limited function, or poor patient-reported outcomes regardless of imaging results. Meniscus repair failure should be assessed using a multidimensional approach, incorporating structural integrity, symptom persistence, functional performance, and patient satisfaction. Standardizing failure definitions will improve data comparability, enhance treatment strategies, and guide patient expectations. Future research should refine composite failure models and integrate meniscus-specific PROMs to optimize long-term outcomes. By redefining failure, clinicians can improve surgical success rates and provide more personalized, evidence-based care.</p><p><strong>Takeaway: </strong>Not all healed menisci function well, and not all unhealed ones fail. By redefining failure, we can reframe success-and better serve patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":10950,"journal":{"name":"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"353-360"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283490/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redefining Failure: Criteria for Unsuccessful Outcomes in Meniscus Repair.\",\"authors\":\"Saygin Kamaci, James Lee Pace\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12178-025-09971-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Meniscus repair plays a critical role in preserving knee function and delaying degenerative changes after a meniscus tear. Despite advancements in surgical techniques, there remains significant variability in how outcomes are defined and reported. This review examines the evolving interplay between traditional metrics of success such as reoperation rates, radiographic healing, etc., and the more subjective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Recent findings highlight the discrepancies between radiographic healing, symptomatic relief, and functional improvement. While reoperation rates remain a widely used failure criterion, they do not account for patients who avoid revision surgery despite persistent symptoms. MRI assessments can detect incomplete healing, but imaging abnormalities do not always correlate with clinical dysfunction. PROMs and return-to-sport (RTS) rates offer valuable insight into functional recovery, yet they vary across studies and may not always reflect anatomical failure. Emerging consensus supports a dual model: anatomical failure, which reflects structural compromise seen on imaging or second-look arthroscopy, and clinical failure, which includes persistent symptoms, limited function, or poor patient-reported outcomes regardless of imaging results. Meniscus repair failure should be assessed using a multidimensional approach, incorporating structural integrity, symptom persistence, functional performance, and patient satisfaction. Standardizing failure definitions will improve data comparability, enhance treatment strategies, and guide patient expectations. Future research should refine composite failure models and integrate meniscus-specific PROMs to optimize long-term outcomes. By redefining failure, clinicians can improve surgical success rates and provide more personalized, evidence-based care.</p><p><strong>Takeaway: </strong>Not all healed menisci function well, and not all unhealed ones fail. By redefining failure, we can reframe success-and better serve patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"353-360\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283490/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-025-09971-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-025-09971-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

回顾目的:半月板修复在半月板撕裂后保持膝关节功能和延缓退行性变化方面起着关键作用。尽管手术技术有了进步,但在如何定义和报告预后方面仍然存在很大的差异。本综述探讨了传统的成功指标(如再手术率、x线片愈合等)与更主观的患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)之间不断发展的相互作用。最近的发现:最近的发现强调了放射治疗、症状缓解和功能改善之间的差异。虽然再手术率仍然是一个广泛使用的失败标准,但它们并不能解释那些尽管症状持续却避免翻修手术的患者。MRI评估可以发现不完全愈合,但成像异常并不总是与临床功能障碍相关。PROMs和运动恢复率(RTS)为功能恢复提供了有价值的见解,但它们在不同的研究中有所不同,可能并不总是反映解剖失败。逐渐形成的共识支持双重模型:解剖失败,反映了影像学或二次关节镜检查所见的结构损害;临床失败,包括持续症状、功能受限或无论影像学结果如何,患者报告的不良结果。半月板修复失败应采用多维方法评估,包括结构完整性、症状持续性、功能表现和患者满意度。标准化失败定义将提高数据的可比性,加强治疗策略,并指导患者的期望。未来的研究应完善复合失效模型,并整合半月板特异性prom,以优化长期结果。通过重新定义失败,临床医生可以提高手术成功率,并提供更个性化的循证护理。结论:不是所有愈合的半月板都能正常工作,也不是所有未愈合的半月板都不能正常工作。通过重新定义失败,我们可以重新定义成功,从而更好地为患者服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Redefining Failure: Criteria for Unsuccessful Outcomes in Meniscus Repair.

Purpose of review: Meniscus repair plays a critical role in preserving knee function and delaying degenerative changes after a meniscus tear. Despite advancements in surgical techniques, there remains significant variability in how outcomes are defined and reported. This review examines the evolving interplay between traditional metrics of success such as reoperation rates, radiographic healing, etc., and the more subjective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Recent findings: Recent findings highlight the discrepancies between radiographic healing, symptomatic relief, and functional improvement. While reoperation rates remain a widely used failure criterion, they do not account for patients who avoid revision surgery despite persistent symptoms. MRI assessments can detect incomplete healing, but imaging abnormalities do not always correlate with clinical dysfunction. PROMs and return-to-sport (RTS) rates offer valuable insight into functional recovery, yet they vary across studies and may not always reflect anatomical failure. Emerging consensus supports a dual model: anatomical failure, which reflects structural compromise seen on imaging or second-look arthroscopy, and clinical failure, which includes persistent symptoms, limited function, or poor patient-reported outcomes regardless of imaging results. Meniscus repair failure should be assessed using a multidimensional approach, incorporating structural integrity, symptom persistence, functional performance, and patient satisfaction. Standardizing failure definitions will improve data comparability, enhance treatment strategies, and guide patient expectations. Future research should refine composite failure models and integrate meniscus-specific PROMs to optimize long-term outcomes. By redefining failure, clinicians can improve surgical success rates and provide more personalized, evidence-based care.

Takeaway: Not all healed menisci function well, and not all unhealed ones fail. By redefining failure, we can reframe success-and better serve patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: This journal intends to review the most significant recent developments in the field of musculoskeletal medicine. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by expert world-renowned authors, the journal aims to serve all those involved in the diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of musculoskeletal-related conditions. We accomplish this aim by appointing authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as rehabilitation of the knee and hip, sports medicine, trauma, pediatrics, health policy, customization in arthroplasty, and rheumatology. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. We also provide commentaries from well-known figures in the field, and an Editorial Board of more than 20 diverse members suggests topics of special interest to their country/region and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research.
×
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