Abstract
ObjectiveIn patients with partial meniscus defect, the implantation of polyurethane meniscal scaffold has become a common method for the treatment of meniscus vascular entry and tissue regeneration. However, it is unclear whether polyurethane meniscal scaffold will yield better clinical and MRI results after surgery. This meta-analysis compared the clinical and MRI results of polyurethane meniscal scaffold in some patients with meniscus defects. MethodsBy searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, a systematic review of studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of patients with polyurethane meniscal scaffold implantation. The search terms used are: “meniscus”, “meniscal”, “scaffold”, “Actifit” “polyurethane” and “implant”. The study was evaluated based on the patient's reported outcome score, accompanying surgery, and radiology results. Genovese scale was used to evaluate morphology and signal intensity, and Yulish score was used to evaluate the imaging performance of articular cartilage. ResultsThere were 16 studies that met the inclusion criteria, a total of 613 patients, and the overall average follow-up time was 41 months. The clinical scores at the final follow-up, such as VAS, IKDC, Tegner, and KOOS, were significantly improved compared with preoperatively. The MS, SI, and IIRMC scores evaluated in MRI showed no significant difference between preoperative and final follow-up. However, for AC (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11–1.00; P = 0.05) and AME (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03–0.22; P < 0.01), the final follow-up results were worse than preoperatively. ConclusionsThis meta-analysis found that compared with preoperative, the clinical effect of the final follow-up was significantly improved. However, MS, SI, and IIRMC in MRI parameters did not change significantly. In addition, the final follow-up results of AC and AME showed a deteriorating trend. Therefore, for patients with partial meniscus defects, polyurethane meniscal scaffold seem to be a viable option, and further research is needed to determine whether the deterioration of AC and AME is clinically relevant.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.