Abstract:PurposeMedial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRT) induce medial meniscus extrusion (MME). However, the time-dependent extent of MME in patients suffering from the MMPRT remains unclear. This study evaluated the extent of MME after painful popping events that occurred at the onset of the MMPRT.Materials and MethodsThirty-five patients who had an episode of posteromedial painful popping were investigated. All the patients were diagnosed as having an MMPRT by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 12 months af… Show more
“…Although MRI examination is indispensable for the diagnosis of MMPRT, considering the time required for imaging and the high cost, MRI should only be performed in the presence of certain clinical evidence to support its use. On the other hand, it is important to not miss the diagnosis of an MMPRT because of the associated risk for progression of degenerative changes over a short period [28]. Furthermore, if surgery is performed at a later stage, improvements in the MME cannot be expected [29].…”
Purpose: To verify the effectiveness of detecting medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) using weightbearing posterior-anterior (PA) radiographs. Materials and methods: Twenty-three patients were diagnosed with an MMPRT using magnetic resonance imaging (Group A), with 23 matched individuals forming the control group (Group B). The distance between medial tibial eminence and the lateral edge of the medial femoral condyle (MTE-MFC distance) and medial joint space (MJS) width were measured on weight-bearing PA radiographs, with the knee flexed at 45°(Rosenberg view). Absolute medial meniscus extrusion (MME) was measured on magnetic resonance images. Results: The MTE-MFC distance was greater and the MJS width was smaller in Group A than Group B (7.7 ± 1.7 mm versus 6.0 ± 1.24 mm and 3.2 ± 0.8 mm versus 4.5 ± 0.7 mm, respectively; P < 0.05). The MTE-MFC distance and MJS width correlated with MME (r = 0.603 and 0.579, respectively; P < 0.05), and the extent of MME was greater in Group A than Group B (4.1 ± 1.1 mm versus 1.8 ± 1.5 mm, respectively; P < 0.05). Conclusions: MMPRTs increase the MTE-MFC distance and decrease the MJS width, with these measurements correlating to the MME. Therefore, measurement of the MTE-MFC distance and MJS width on the Rosenberg view could be a useful preliminary method for the diagnosis of an MMPRT.
“…Although MRI examination is indispensable for the diagnosis of MMPRT, considering the time required for imaging and the high cost, MRI should only be performed in the presence of certain clinical evidence to support its use. On the other hand, it is important to not miss the diagnosis of an MMPRT because of the associated risk for progression of degenerative changes over a short period [28]. Furthermore, if surgery is performed at a later stage, improvements in the MME cannot be expected [29].…”
Purpose: To verify the effectiveness of detecting medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) using weightbearing posterior-anterior (PA) radiographs. Materials and methods: Twenty-three patients were diagnosed with an MMPRT using magnetic resonance imaging (Group A), with 23 matched individuals forming the control group (Group B). The distance between medial tibial eminence and the lateral edge of the medial femoral condyle (MTE-MFC distance) and medial joint space (MJS) width were measured on weight-bearing PA radiographs, with the knee flexed at 45°(Rosenberg view). Absolute medial meniscus extrusion (MME) was measured on magnetic resonance images. Results: The MTE-MFC distance was greater and the MJS width was smaller in Group A than Group B (7.7 ± 1.7 mm versus 6.0 ± 1.24 mm and 3.2 ± 0.8 mm versus 4.5 ± 0.7 mm, respectively; P < 0.05). The MTE-MFC distance and MJS width correlated with MME (r = 0.603 and 0.579, respectively; P < 0.05), and the extent of MME was greater in Group A than Group B (4.1 ± 1.1 mm versus 1.8 ± 1.5 mm, respectively; P < 0.05). Conclusions: MMPRTs increase the MTE-MFC distance and decrease the MJS width, with these measurements correlating to the MME. Therefore, measurement of the MTE-MFC distance and MJS width on the Rosenberg view could be a useful preliminary method for the diagnosis of an MMPRT.
“…Patients who had radiographic knee osteoarthritis involved in Kellgren-Lawrence grade III or more and a previous history of meniscus injury or knee surgery were excluded. All the patients were diagnosed as having MMPRTs with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations and met operative indications for arthroscopic transtibial pullout repair (a femorotibial angle < 180°, Outerbridge grade I or II, and Kellgren-Lawrence grades 0-II) [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Duration from painful popping event to surgery was 84.4 ± 68.2 days.…”
Purpose: Posterior root repair of the medial meniscus (MM) can prevent rapid progression of knee osteoarthritis in patients with a MM posterior root tear (MMPRT). The anatomic reattachment of the MM posterior root is considered to be critical in a transtibial pullout repair. However, tibial tunnel creation at the anatomic attachment is technically difficult. We hypothesized that a newly developed point-contact aiming guide [Unicorn Meniscal Root (UMR) guide] can create the tibial tunnel at a better position rather than a previously designed MMPRT guide. The aim of this study was to compare the position of the created tibial tunnel between the two meniscal root repair guides. Materials and methods: Thirty-eight patients underwent transtibial pullout repairs. Tibial tunnel creation was performed using the UMR guide (19 cases) or MMPRT guide (19 cases). Three-dimensional computed tomography images of the tibial surface were evaluated using the Tsukada's measurement method postoperatively. The expected anatomic center of the MM posterior root attachment was defined as the center of three tangential lines referring to three anatomic bony landmarks (anterior border of the posterior cruciate ligament, lateral margin of the medial tibial plateau, and retro-eminence ridge). The expected anatomic center and tibial tunnel center were evaluated using the percentage-based posterolateral location on the tibial surface. The distance between the anatomic center and tunnel center was calculated. Results: The anatomic center of the MM posterior root footprint was located at a position of 79.2% posterior and 39.5% lateral. The mean of the tunnel center in the UMR guide was similar to that in the MMPRT guide (posterior direction, P = 0.096; lateral direction, P = 0.280). The mean distances between the tunnel center and the anatomic center were 4.06 and 3.99 mm in the UMR and MMPRT guide group, respectively (P = 0.455). Conclusions: The UMR guide, as well as the MMPRT guide, is a useful device to create favorable tibial tunnels at the MM posterior root attachment for pullout repairs in patients with MMPRTs.
“…Injuries to the MM posterior root, including complete radial and/or oblique tears adjacent to the posterior root attachment and posterior horn, lead to accelerated degeneration of the knee joint articular cartilage by disrupting meniscal functions [1]. In addition, the MM posterior root tear (MMPRT) leads to progression of osteoarthritis and/or spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee by inducing abnormal biomechanics of the tibiofemoral joint [2,3]. Therefore, conservative treatments of MMPRTs are associated with worsening osteoarthritis and poor clinical outcome [4].…”
This study demonstrated that our semi-quantitative scoring system of meniscal healing correlated with the KOOS QOL subscale following MMPRT transtibial pullout repair. Our results suggest that the second-look arthroscopic score using this system may be a useful scale to determine and compare the healing status of the MM posterior root.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.