[1]董志强,黄凌岸,李飞,等.关节镜下外-内与全内修复技术治疗半月板损伤疗效的meta分析[J].中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志,2022,(02):109-116.[doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2022.02.007]
　Dong Zhiqiang,Huang Lingan,Li Fei,et al.Arthroscopic outside-in suture technique versus all-inside suture technique for patients with meniscus injury：A Meta-Analysis[J].Chin J Geriatr Orthop Rehabil(Electronic Edition),2022,(02):109-116.[doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2022.02.007]
点击复制

关节镜下外-内与全内修复技术治疗半月板损伤疗效的meta分析()
分享到：

中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志[ISSN:1674-3911/CN:11-9292/R]

卷:
期数:
2022年02期
页码:
109-116
栏目:
Meta分析
出版日期:
2022-04-05

文章信息/Info

Title:
Arthroscopic outside-in suture technique versus all-inside suture technique for patients with meniscus injury：A Meta-Analysis
作者:
董志强1; 黄凌岸1; 李飞1; 吴改革1; 李鹏翠2; 卫小春2
030001 太原，山西医科大学第二临床医学院1；030001太原，山西医科大学第二医院骨与软组织损伤修复山西省重点实验室2
Author(s):
Dong Zhiqiang1;  Huang Lingan1;  Li Fei1;  Wu Gaige1;  Li Pengcui2;  Wei Xiaochun2.
1Department of Orthopedics, the Second Clinical Medical College of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030001, China; 2Key Laboratory of Bone and Soft Tissue Injury Repair of the Second Clinical Medical College of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030001, China
关键词:
半月板损伤;  关节镜;  外-内修复;  全内修复
Keywords:
Meniscus injury;  Arthroscopy;  Outside-in;  All-inside
DOI:
10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2022.02.007
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 通过Meta分析评测关节镜下外-内修复技术与全内修复技术治疗半月板损伤的临床疗效，为治疗方案的选择提供循证依据。方法 计算机检索1990年1月至2020年12月Pubmed、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science、万方、中国知网（CNKI）、维普、中国生物医学文献数据库（CMB）等数据库，收集已发表的比较关节镜下外-内修复技术与全内修复技术的随机对照试验和病例对照研究文献，根据纳入与排除标准进行文献筛选、质量评价及数据提取，采用Review manager 5.3软件进行统计分析。结果 最终纳入8篇文献，其中英文文献1篇，中文文献7篇。总计664例患者，其中关节镜下外-内修复组329例，关节镜下全内修复组335例。Meta分析结果显示：关节镜下外-内修复组与全内修复组在术后并发症发生率[OR=4.42，95% CI（1.26，15.48），P=0.02]及手术时间[MD=9.74，95% CI（7.75，11.72），P＜0.001] 方面，两组差异有统计学意义；在治愈率、术后Lysholm评分、术中出血量、平均住院时间、术后异常体征发生率（关节压痛、关节交锁、McMurray征）方面，两组差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 在治疗半月板损伤时，较外-内修复技术而言，关节镜下全内修复技术能减少手术并发症发生率，缩短手术时间。
Abstract:
Objective To provide evidence-based basis for the surgery option by comparing the efficacy and safety of arthroscopic outside-in suture technique versus all-inside suture technique for meniscus injury. Methods Articles which compared two suture techniques published in PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wan Fang Data, CQVIP and CBM were retrieved from January 1990 to December 2020. Methodological quality of the trials was critically assessed. Relevant data were extracted to Meta-analysis by Review Manager 5.3. Results Eight articles were enrolled in this study, including 1 English article and 7 Chinese articles. A total of 664 patients were investigated, including 329 patients in arthroscopic outside-in suture technique and 335 patients in arthroscopic all-inside suture technique. Results showed that a statistical significance was found in the rate of postoperative complications [OR=4.42, 95% CI(1.26, 15.48), P=0.02] and operation time[MD=9.74, 95% CI(7.75, 11.72)，P＜0.001]. The healing rate, postoperative Lysholm score, intraoperative blood loss, mean length of hospital stay and rate of postoperative abnormal signs (joint tenderness, joint lock and McMurray test) were not statistically significant. Conclusions Compared to arthroscopic outside-in suture technique for meniscus injury, arthroscopic all-inside suture technique reduced the rate of postoperative complications and shorten the operation time. Therefore, arthroscopic all-inside suture technique is recommended as the first choice for meniscus injury repair.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目：国家自然科学基金（81772415）
更新日期/Last Update: 2022-06-17