4.5 Article

Smoking increases the risk of early meniscus repair failure

期刊

KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 1540-1543

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4002-8

关键词

Smoking; Meniscus repair; Repeat surgery

资金

  1. OSU College of Medicine Roessler Research Scholarship
  2. National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIH-NIAMS) [K23 AR063767]
  3. Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this study is to determine whether patients who smoke cigarettes at the time of surgery are at significantly increased risk of early meniscus repair failure relative to non-smokers. Retrospective chart review identified 64 current smokers within a series of 444 consecutive patients who underwent meniscus repair during a 7 years period. Fifty-two of these 64 smokers were available for follow-up and were matched by age, sex, and ACL status with non-smokers from the same cohort. Records of these 104 patients with a total of 120 meniscus repairs were reviewed to identify meniscus repair failure (defined as repeat surgery on the index meniscus) during the median 13-month (range: 3-79 months) follow-up period. The smoking and non-smoking groups were similar in age, sex, ACL status, BMI, meniscus repair technique, and meniscus involved. Meniscus repair failure occurred in 19 of the 112 menisci in 104 patients, for an overall failure risk of 17 %. Of the 19 failures, 14 occurred in 79 repaired medial menisci (18 % failure risk) and 5 occurred in 33 repaired lateral menisci (15 % failure risk). Meniscus repair failure occurred in significantly more smokers (15 failures in 56 menisci in 52 patients -27 % failure risk) than non-smokers (4 failures in 56 menisci in 52 patients -7 % failure risk) (p = 0.0076). Smoking is associated with significantly increased risk of early meniscus repair failure as defined by the incidence of repeat surgery on the index meniscus. III.

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

4.5
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