Large meniscus extrusion ratio is a poor prognostic factor of conservative treatment for medial meniscus posterior root tear

Purpose The purpose of this study was to find a prognostic factor of medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) for surgical decision making. Methods Eighty-eight patients who were diagnosed as acute or subacute MMPRT without severe degeneration of the meniscus were treated conservatively for 3 mon...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2018-03, Vol.26 (3), p.781-786
Hauptverfasser: Kwak, Yoon-Ho, Lee, Sahnghoon, Lee, Myung Chul, Han, Hyuk-Soo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose The purpose of this study was to find a prognostic factor of medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) for surgical decision making. Methods Eighty-eight patients who were diagnosed as acute or subacute MMPRT without severe degeneration of the meniscus were treated conservatively for 3 months. Fifty-seven patients with MMPRT showed good response to conservative treatment (group 1), while the remaining 31 patients who failed to conservative treatment (group 2) received arthroscopic meniscus repair. Their demographic characteristics and radiographic features including hip-knee-ankle angle, joint line convergence angle, Kellgren–Lawrence grade in plain radiographs, meniscus extrusion (ME) ratio (ME-medial femoral condyle ratio, ME-medial tibial plateau ratio, ME-meniscus width ratio), the location of bony edema, and cartilage lesions in MRI were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was also performed to determine the cut-off values of risk factors. Results The degree of ME-medial femoral condyle and medial tibia plateau ratio of group 2 was significantly higher than group 1 (0.08 and 0.07 vs. 0.1 and 0.09, respectively, both p  
ISSN:0942-2056
1433-7347
DOI:10.1007/s00167-017-4441-x