SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 10

Is MR imaging correlated with mid-term clinical results after arthroscopic all-inside meniscal repair?

Soner AKKURT
Serap DOĞAN
Ahmet GÜNEY
Erdal UZUN
Pages
2187–2193
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At the last time followup the mean IKDC and Lysholm scores were improved significantly (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To research the correlation between clinical and radiological results after arthroscopic meniscus repair with all-inside suturetechnique and to assess the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostic value on previously repaired meniscus.Materials and Methods: Fifty-two patients were included in the study.All-inside suture technique with a Fast-Fix suture device wasused for all patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After at least 24 months follow-up, the affected knee was checked with 1.5 Tesla MRI if there was an additionalpathology or the meniscal pathology persisted with criteria of Crues et al.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At the last time followup the mean IKDC and Lysholm scores were improved significantly (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To research the correlation between clinical and radiological results after arthroscopic meniscus repair with all-inside suturetechnique and to assess the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostic value on previously repaired meniscus.Materials and Methods: Fifty-two patients were included in the study.All-inside suture technique with a Fast-Fix suture device wasused for all patients. After at least 24 months follow-up, the affected knee was checked with 1.5 Tesla MRI if there was an additionalpathology or the meniscal pathology persisted with criteria of Crues et al. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) andLysholm scores were used for evaluation of the functional status of patients. Barrett’s criteria wascriteria were used for failure ratesand clinical improvement. Correlation between clinical results and MRI findings were investigated.Results: The mean follow-up was 39.6 (range, 24–60) months. The mean age was 31.4 (range, 21–45) years. At the last time followup the mean IKDC and Lysholm scores were improved significantly (p

🔖

Cite This Article

AKKURT, S., DOĞAN, S., GÜNEY, A., UZUN, E. (2022). Is MR imaging correlated with mid-term clinical results after arthroscopic all-inside meniscal repair?. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 10, 2187–2193. https://ajindex.com/articles/446998

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. McDermott ID, Amis AA. The consequences of meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88:1549–56 2. Tuckman DV, Bravman JT, Lee SS, et al. Outcomes of meniscal repair: minimum of 2-year follow-up. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2006;63:100–4. 3. Rosso C, Kovtun K, Dow W, et al. Comparison of all-inside meniscal repair devices with matched inside-out suture repair. Am J Sports Med 2011;39:2634–39. 4. Rodeo SA. Arthroscopic meniscal repair with use of the outside-in technique. Instr Course Lect. 2000;49:195–206 5. Grant JA, Wilde J, Miller BS, et al. Comparison of inside-out and all-inside techniques for the repair of isolated meniscal tears: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2012;40:459– 68. 6. Miao Y, Yu JK, Ao YF, et al. Diagnostic values of 3 methods for evaluating meniscal healing status after meniscal repair: comparison among second-look arthroscopy, clinical assessment, and magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med 2011;39:735–42. 7. Morgan CD, Wojtys EM, Casscells CD, et al. Arthroscopic meniscal repair evaluated by second-look arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 1991;19:632–8. 8. McCauley TR. MR imaging evaluation of the postoperative knee. Radiology 2005;234:53–61. 9. Recht MP, Kramer J. MR imaging of the postoperative knee: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 2002;22:765–74. 10. Toms AP, White LM, Marshall TJ, et al. Imaging the postoperative meniscus. Eur J Radiol 2005;54:189–98. 11. Muellner T, Egkher A, Nikolic A, et al. Open meniscal repair: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging findings after twelve years. Am J Sports Med 1999;27:16–20. 12. Kent RH, Pope CF, Lynch JK, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the surgically repaired meniscus: six-month follow-up. Magn Reson Imaging 1991;9:335–41. 13. White LM, Schweitzer ME, Weishaupt D, et al. Diagnosis of recurrent meniscal tears: prospective evaluation of conventional MR imaging, indirect MR arthrography, and direct MR arthrography. Radiology 2002;222:421–9. 14. Van Trommel MF, Potter HG, Ernberg LA, et al. The use of noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation meniscal repair: comparison with conventional arthrography. Arthroscopy 1998;14:2–8. 15. Hantes ME, Zachos VC, Zibis AH, et al. Evaluation of meniscal repair with serial magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study between conventional MRI and indirect MR arthrography. Eur J Radiol 2004;50:231–7. 16. Pujol N, Panarella L, Selmi TA, et al. Meniscal healing after meniscal repair: a CT arthrography assessment. Am J Sports Med 2008;36:489–95. 17.