4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Deteriorating outcomes after meniscal repair using the meniscus arrow in knees undergoing concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - Increased failure rate with long-term follow-up

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 1138-1141

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0363546505275348

关键词

meniscus; repair; arrow; outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: An increased awareness of the degenerative changes that occur in the knee after meniscectomy has led to efforts to salvage the injured meniscus. Numerous devices have been developed in an effort to provide the dual benefits of a durable meniscal repair and minimal invasiveness. Hypothesis: The Meniscus Arrow is comparable to conventional inside-out suture repair in accomplishing long-term healing of meniscal tears. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This study is an extended follow-up of an original series of 32 patients with outcomes analysis. All patients underwent meniscal repair with exclusive use of the arrow. All repairs were performed in the context of a concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Follow-up assessment included physical examination, arthrometry, the International Knee Documentation Committee instrument, and the Knee Disorders Subjective History visual analog scale. Intermediate follow-up at a mean of 2.3 years yielded a success rate of 90.6%. The mean follow-up in the present study has been extended to 6.6 years. Results: The extended follow-up analysis revealed a substantial attrition in the success rate of this series of patients undergoing meniscal repair with the arrow. A 90.6% success rate at a mean follow-up of 2.3 years deteriorated to 71.4% at 6.6 years. Conclusion: This study provides the longest follow-up in the literature of any of the all-inside meniscal repair implants. The Meniscus Arrow demonstrated long-term meniscal healing rates inferior to those found in the literature for inside-out suture repair techniques.

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

4.6
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