4.3 Article

Comparative Study of Collagen versus Synthetic-Based Meniscal Scaffolds in Treating Meniscal Deficiency in Young Active Population

期刊

CARTILAGE
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 29-38

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1947603515600219

关键词

scaffolds; meniscus; polarized light microscopy; meniscal injury; knee

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2 different meniscal scaffolds in treating patients with irreparable partial medial meniscal tear and patients complaining of pain in the medial compartment of the knee due to a previous partial medial meniscectomy. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that both the scaffolds are effective in improving clinical outcomes in these patient populations. Material and Methods: Twenty-eight patients underwent collagen-based medial meniscus implantation (CMI-Menaflex) and 25 with a second-generation scaffold (Actifit). All patients were assessed with Lysholm, Tegner scale, and MRI evaluationpreoperatively, at 6 months, at 12 moths, and followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. Second look arthroscopy and concomitant biopsy were performed in 7 and 12 patients of CMI and Actifit groups, respectively. Results: The CMI group at final follow-up showed improvement in Lysholm score from 58.4 17.3 to 94.5 +/- 6.0, while the Actifit group showed improvement from 67.0 +/- 15.7 to 90.3 +/- 13.1; the improvement was statistically significant in both the groups but intergroup difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.1061). Tegner Activity Scale score improved in both the groups, but intergroup difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5918). MRI evaluation showed in situ scaffold and no progression of degenerative arthritis in both the groups at final follow-up. Histological evaluation showed more fibrous tissue with blood vessels in the CMI group and the Actift group showed avascular cartilaginous features. Conclusion: Both the scaffolds are effective in improving patients' symptoms and joint function at short-term follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据