No abstract

No abstract

Background: Previous meta-analyses have demonstrated superior outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) compared with meniscectomy. However, these analyses have considered only short- or midterm outcomes and low-quality evidence. Purpose: To compare the mid- to long-term rates of radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) between repair and meniscectomy for MMPRT. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid/MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were queried for articles evaluating repair and meniscectomy for MMPRT. Articles were eligible if they had a minimum mean 4-year follow-up for radiographic OA or conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and were at least level 3 evidence. Radiographic OA was assessed using Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) progression. Rates of conversion to TKA and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were also extracted. DerSimonian-Laird binary random-effects models were created to evaluate differences in radiographic OA and TKA conversion rates, with odds ratios (ORs) representing pooled estimates. Continuous random-effects models with standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used to compare postoperative IKDC scores. Results: Repair and meniscectomy cohorts were followed for a mean of 64.8 months and 62.5 months, respectively, for KL progression; and 82.8 months and 73.8 months, respectively, for TKA rates and IKDC scores. Overall, 59 of 144 (41%) patients undergoing surgical intervention for MMPRT demonstrated OA progression; 18 of 82 (22%) who underwent repair for MMPRT exhibited OA progression compared with 41 of 62 (66%) who underwent meniscectomy (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.83; P = .029). Overall, 30 of 143 (21%) patients converted to TKA; 9.8% (8/82) of patients who underwent repair converted to TKA (range, 47-131 months), while 36% (22/61) who underwent meniscectomy converted to TKA (range, 17.8-101 months) (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.44; P < .001). No significant differences between postoperative IKDC scores were observed (SMD, 0.51; 95% CI, -0.02 to 1.05; P = .06). Conclusion: Medial meniscus posterior root repair results in significantly lower rates of radiographic OA progression and conversion to TKA at >60-month follow-up. On the basis of these findings, we recommend consideration of repair of MMPRTs when degenerative changes are not severe, as it can yield improved outcomes.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of training simulators on surgical skill measures across randomized controlled trials. The authors hypothesized that simulated training would (1) result in objective improvements in skill acquisition and (2) be heterogeneous regarding the outcomes and types of validity assessed. Methods: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were queried for Level I studies on training simulators between 2007 and 2019 in accordance with the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Exclusion criteria were studies without discrete assessment of skills acquisition after surgical simulator training and level of evidence II to V. The Jadad scale was used to assess the methodological quality of all included articles. Data pertaining to patient demographics, validity measures, simulator types, and study-specific outcome measures were extracted. Meta-analyses adjusted for random effects and heterogeneity analyses (I2) were used to compare pooled time-to-completion and performance outcomes among included studies. Results: A total of 24 studies with 494 participants were identified. The most common simulator type involved knee arthroscopy (11 studies, 45.8%). Eight studies reporting time-to-task completion and performance scores were included in the meta-analysis. Virtual reality training was favored in time-to-task completion (mean difference = −82.25 seconds, P = 0.002) and improvement in objective performance scores (mean difference = 1.24, P = 0.02) relative to traditional training. Sensitivity analysis of time-to-task completion based on the length of training interval revealed a mean difference of −45.24 (P = 0.07) and −137.74 (P < 0.001) seconds for the short-term and immediate posttesting subgroups, respectively. Conclusion: Overall, improved task efficiency and performance were observed with the use of orthopaedic simulators. However, simulator type, training protocols, and outcome measures were heterogeneous. Future studies are warranted to evaluate financial cost and longitudinal training programs and to standardize outcomes regarding the use of simulators in orthopaedic education. Level of Evidence: Level I