32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus placebo surgery for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 2-year follow-up of the randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To assess if arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is superior to placebo surgery in the treatment of patients with degenerative tear of the medial meniscus.

          Methods

          In this multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial, 146 adults, aged 35–65 years, with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis were randomised to APM or placebo surgery. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Lysholm knee scores and knee pain after exercise at 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of unblinding of the treatment-group allocation, participants' satisfaction, impression of change, return to normal activities, the incidence of serious adverse events and the presence of meniscal symptoms in clinical examination. Two subgroup analyses, assessing the outcome on those with mechanical symptoms and those with unstable meniscus tears, were also carried out.

          Results

          In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the mean changes from baseline to 24 months in WOMET score: 27.3 in the APM group as compared with 31.6 in the placebo-surgery group (between-group difference, −4.3; 95% CI, −11.3 to 2.6); Lysholm knee score: 23.1 and 26.3, respectively (−3.2; −8.9 to 2.4) or knee pain after exercise, 3.5 and 3.9, respectively (−0.4; −1.3 to 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes or within the analysed subgroups.

          Conclusions

          In this 2-year follow-up of patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after APM were no better than those after placebo surgery. No evidence could be found to support the prevailing ideas that patients with presence of mechanical symptoms or certain meniscus tear characteristics or those who have failed initial conservative treatment are more likely to benefit from APM.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear.

          Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in 146 patients 35 to 65 years of age who had knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or sham surgery. The primary outcomes were changes in the Lysholm and Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) scores (each ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating more severe symptoms) and in knee pain after exercise (rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 denoting no pain) at 12 months after the procedure. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months in any primary outcome. The mean changes (improvements) in the primary outcome measures were as follows: Lysholm score, 21.7 points in the partial-meniscectomy group as compared with 23.3 points in the sham-surgery group (between-group difference, -1.6 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.2 to 4.0); WOMET score, 24.6 and 27.1 points, respectively (between-group difference, -2.5 points; 95% CI, -9.2 to 4.1); and score for knee pain after exercise, 3.1 and 3.3 points, respectively (between-group difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.7). There were no significant differences between groups in the number of patients who required subsequent knee surgery (two in the partial-meniscectomy group and five in the sham-surgery group) or serious adverse events (one and zero, respectively). In this trial involving patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy were no better than those after a sham surgical procedure. (Funded by the Sigrid Juselius Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00549172.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence.

            As a prelude to developing updated, evidence-based, international consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Treatment Guidelines Committee undertook a critical appraisal of published guidelines and a systematic review (SR) of more recent evidence for relevant therapies. Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care two, rheumatology 11, orthopaedics one and evidence-based medicine two), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. Three additional experts were invited to take part in the critical appraisal of existing guidelines in languages other than English. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Library, seven Guidelines Websites and Google were searched systematically to identify guidelines for the management of hip and/or knee OA. Guidelines which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were assigned to four groups of four appraisers. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument and standardised percent scores (0-100%) for scope, stakeholder involvement, rigour, clarity, applicability and editorial independence, as well as overall quality, were calculated. Treatment modalities addressed and recommended by the guidelines were summarised. Agreement (%) was estimated and the best level of evidence to support each recommendation was extracted. Evidence for each treatment modality was updated from the date of the last SR in January 2002 to January 2006. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Oxman and Guyatt, and Jadad scales for SRs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk (RR) or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALY) were estimated. Twenty-three of 1462 guidelines or consensus statements retrieved from the literature search met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six were predominantly based on expert opinion, five were primarily evidence based and 12 were based on both. Overall quality scores were 28%, 41% and 51% for opinion-based, evidence-based and hybrid guidelines, respectively (P=0.001). Scores for aspects of quality varied from 18% for applicability to 67% for scope. Thirteen guidelines had been developed for specific care settings including five for primary care (e.g., Prodigy Guidance), three for rheumatology (e.g., European League against Rheumatism recommendations), three for physiotherapy (e.g., Dutch clinical practice guidelines for physical therapy) and two for orthopaedics (e.g., National Institutes of Health consensus guidelines), whereas 10 did not specify the target users (e.g., Ontario guidelines for optimal therapy). Whilst 14 guidelines did not separate hip and knee, eight were specific for knee but only one for hip. Fifty-one different treatment modalities were addressed by these guidelines, but only 20 were universally recommended. Evidence to support these modalities ranged from Ia (meta-analysis/SR of RCTs) to IV (expert opinion). The efficacy of some modalities of therapy was confirmed by the results of RCTs published between January 2002 and 2006. These included exercise (strengthening ES 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23, 0.42, aerobic ES 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.70 and water-based ES 0.25, 95% CI 0.02, 0.47) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ES 0.32, 95% CI 0.24, 0.39). Examples of other treatment modalities where recent trials failed to confirm efficacy included ultrasound (ES 0.06, 95% CI -0.39, 0.52), massage (ES 0.10, 95% CI -0.23, 0.43) and heat/ice therapy (ES 0.69, 95% CI -0.07, 1.45). The updated evidence on adverse effects also varied from treatment to treatment. For example, while the evidence for gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of non-selective NSAIDs (RR=5.36, 95% CI 1.79, 16.10) and for increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with rofecoxib (RR=2.24, 95% CI 1.24, 4.02) were reinforced, evidence for other potential drug related adverse events such as GI toxicity with acetaminophen or myocardial infarction with celecoxib remained inconclusive. Twenty-three guidelines have been developed for the treatment of hip and/or knee OA, based on opinion alone, research evidence or both. Twenty of 51 modalities of therapy are universally recommended by these guidelines. Although this suggests that a core set of recommendations for treatment exists, critical appraisal shows that the overall quality of existing guidelines is sub-optimal, and consensus recommendations are not always supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines of optimal quality are most likely to be achieved by combining research evidence with expert consensus and by paying due attention to issues such as editorial independence, stakeholder involvement and applicability. This review of existing guidelines provides support for the development of new guidelines cognisant of the limitations in existing guidelines. Recommendations should be revised regularly following SR of new research evidence as this becomes available.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              EVALUATION OF CARTILAGE INJURIES AND REPAIR

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Rheum Dis
                Ann. Rheum. Dis
                annrheumdis
                ard
                Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
                Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0003-4967
                1468-2060
                February 2018
                18 May 2017
                : 77
                : 2
                : 188-195
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology , Hatanpää Hospital , Tampere, Finland
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology , Helsinki University Hospital , Helsinki, Finland
                [3 ] departmentCenter for Health and Social Economics , National Institute for Health and Welfare , Helsinki, Finland
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology , Turku University Hospital , Turku, Finland
                [5 ] departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology , Kuopio University Hospital , Kuopio, Finland
                [6 ] departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology , Central Finland Central Hospital , Jyväskylä, Finland
                [7 ] Arthroscopic and Sports Medicine Center Pohjola Sairaala , Helsinki, Finland
                [8 ] departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology , Tampere University Hospital , Tampere, Finland
                [9 ] departmentDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology , Helsinki University, Töölö Hospital , Helsinki, Finland
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Teppo L N Järvinen, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Töölö Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, Helsinki 00260, Finland; teppo.jarvinen@ 123456helsinki.fi
                Article
                annrheumdis-2017-211172
                10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211172
                5867417
                28522452
                8db55f33-d8d7-4d83-bfa9-00a999c97aed
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 19 January 2017
                : 03 April 2017
                : 13 April 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006306, Sigrid Jusliuksen Sti;
                Funded by: The Academy of Finland;
                Funded by: Social Insurance Institution of Finland;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004012, Jane ja Aatos Erkon Sti;
                Funded by: State funding for university-level health research for Helsinki University;
                Funded by: State funding for university-level health research for Tampere University;
                Categories
                Clinical and Epidemiological Research
                1506
                2311
                1507
                Extended report
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                editors-choice

                Immunology
                knee osteoarthritis,orthopaedic surgery,treatment
                Immunology
                knee osteoarthritis, orthopaedic surgery, treatment

                Comments

                Comment on this article