{"title":"半月板翻修修复的临床考虑和结果综述。","authors":"Emily Berzolla, Vishal Sundaram, Eric Strauss","doi":"10.1007/s12178-025-09968-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Meniscus repair is preferred over meniscectomy when possible due to its ability to preserve meniscal tissue and reduce long-term joint degeneration. However, meniscus repair has a risk of failure, resulting in an increasing number of patients presenting with symptoms following a failed repair. Revision meniscus repair remains an option for symptomatic patients, yet guidance on indications, surgical techniques, and expected outcomes is limited. The purpose of this review is to summarize indications, surgical approaches, and outcomes associated with revision meniscus repair.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Patient-specific factors such as age, activity level, and modifiable risk factors influence revision repair success. Younger, highly active individuals may be at higher risk of retear due to increased mechanical stress. Tissue quality and vascularity are critical, as degenerative changes and poor perfusion increase failure rates. The gold-standard inside-out technique is often favored for revision repairs due to its superior biomechanical stability. However, all-inside and outside-in techniques remain viable options in specific cases. Biological augmentation, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and marrow venting, may enhance healing potential but requires further investigation. Revision meniscus repair demonstrates comparable failure rates and functional outcomes to primary repair, with reported failure rates ranging from 21-33% at mid-term follow-up. Many patients successfully return to high levels of activity following revision repair. Although younger age and high activity levels may predispose to failure, revision meniscus repair remains a viable option for preserving meniscal integrity and optimizing long-term joint health.</p>","PeriodicalId":10950,"journal":{"name":"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"344-352"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283492/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of Revision Meniscal Repair: Clinical Considerations and Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Berzolla, Vishal Sundaram, Eric Strauss\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12178-025-09968-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Meniscus repair is preferred over meniscectomy when possible due to its ability to preserve meniscal tissue and reduce long-term joint degeneration. However, meniscus repair has a risk of failure, resulting in an increasing number of patients presenting with symptoms following a failed repair. Revision meniscus repair remains an option for symptomatic patients, yet guidance on indications, surgical techniques, and expected outcomes is limited. The purpose of this review is to summarize indications, surgical approaches, and outcomes associated with revision meniscus repair.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Patient-specific factors such as age, activity level, and modifiable risk factors influence revision repair success. Younger, highly active individuals may be at higher risk of retear due to increased mechanical stress. Tissue quality and vascularity are critical, as degenerative changes and poor perfusion increase failure rates. The gold-standard inside-out technique is often favored for revision repairs due to its superior biomechanical stability. However, all-inside and outside-in techniques remain viable options in specific cases. Biological augmentation, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and marrow venting, may enhance healing potential but requires further investigation. Revision meniscus repair demonstrates comparable failure rates and functional outcomes to primary repair, with reported failure rates ranging from 21-33% at mid-term follow-up. Many patients successfully return to high levels of activity following revision repair. Although younger age and high activity levels may predispose to failure, revision meniscus repair remains a viable option for preserving meniscal integrity and optimizing long-term joint health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"344-352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283492/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-025-09968-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/16 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/s12178-025-09968-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Review of Revision Meniscal Repair: Clinical Considerations and Outcomes.
Purpose: Meniscus repair is preferred over meniscectomy when possible due to its ability to preserve meniscal tissue and reduce long-term joint degeneration. However, meniscus repair has a risk of failure, resulting in an increasing number of patients presenting with symptoms following a failed repair. Revision meniscus repair remains an option for symptomatic patients, yet guidance on indications, surgical techniques, and expected outcomes is limited. The purpose of this review is to summarize indications, surgical approaches, and outcomes associated with revision meniscus repair.
Recent findings: Patient-specific factors such as age, activity level, and modifiable risk factors influence revision repair success. Younger, highly active individuals may be at higher risk of retear due to increased mechanical stress. Tissue quality and vascularity are critical, as degenerative changes and poor perfusion increase failure rates. The gold-standard inside-out technique is often favored for revision repairs due to its superior biomechanical stability. However, all-inside and outside-in techniques remain viable options in specific cases. Biological augmentation, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and marrow venting, may enhance healing potential but requires further investigation. Revision meniscus repair demonstrates comparable failure rates and functional outcomes to primary repair, with reported failure rates ranging from 21-33% at mid-term follow-up. Many patients successfully return to high levels of activity following revision repair. Although younger age and high activity levels may predispose to failure, revision meniscus repair remains a viable option for preserving meniscal integrity and optimizing long-term joint health.
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.