The German Arthroscopy Registry DART: what has happened after 5 years?

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. 7. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2023 Nov 11;37:120. doi: 10.47176/mjiri.37.120. eCollection 2023. Meniscal Repair Compared to Meniscectomy for Meniscal Injury: 3-year Outcomes from a Retrospective Cohort Study. Nabiyev E(1), Baizakov A(2), Kashikova K(3), Askerov R(2), Baubekov Z(4), Argynbayev Z(2), Baikubesov K(2). Author information: (1)KazNMU named S.D. Asfendiyarov. (2)Kazakhstan's Medikal University "KSPH". (3)Caspian University, International School of Medicine, Almaty, Kazakhstan. (4)West Kazakhstan Marat Ospanov Medical University. BACKGROUND: Meniscal injury is a common problem that can lead to knee pain and dysfunction. Meniscal repair and meniscectomy are two treatment approaches for meniscal injury, but the latter may increase the risk of osteoarthritis. We aimed to compare the 3-year outcomes of a new method of meniscal suturing with meniscectomy among patients with meniscal injury. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared meniscal repair (treatment group) and meniscectomy (control group) in patients with meniscal injury. We evaluated the outcomes of 134 patients. under treatment with these approaches based on the Lysholm scale, which measures knee function and symptoms. The study used the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the proportion of patients with different outcomes and the Lysholm scale scores between the treatment and control groups. The study also conducted subgroup analyses based on gender and age using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05 for all statistical tests. RESULTS: The treatment group had a higher proportion of patients with excellent results, although the difference was not statistically significant (17.2% in the treatment group vs. 10.0% in the control group, P = 0.223). However, a comparative analysis of the proportion of patients with good results revealed statistically significant differences, with 67.2% of patients in the treatment group achieving good outcomes compared to 45.7% in the control group (χ2 = 6,256, df = 1 P = 0.012, HR 1,470 95%CI 1,081-1,999). The average score on the Lysholm scale was significantly higher in the treatment group (87.48, 95% CI 85.1-89.7, SD = 9.2) compared to the control group (81.73, 95% CI 78.4-84.9, SD = 13.7) (U = 1609, Z = -2.813, P = 0.005). Subgroup analyses based on gender and age also showed significant differences in the Lysholm scale scores. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that meniscal repair is more effective than meniscectomy in improving patient outcomes, with a higher proportion of patients achieving excellent and good results and higher scores on the Lysholm scale. These findings support the use of meniscal repair as a preferred treatment approach for patients with meniscal injuries. © 2023 Iran University of Medical Sciences. DOI: 10.47176/mjiri.37.120 PMCID: PMC10744140