首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Sports Medicine >Diagnostic values of 3 methods for evaluating meniscal healing status after meniscal repair: comparison among second-look arthroscopy, clinical assessment, and magnetic resonance imaging.
【24h】

Diagnostic values of 3 methods for evaluating meniscal healing status after meniscal repair: comparison among second-look arthroscopy, clinical assessment, and magnetic resonance imaging.

机译:3种评估半月板修复后半月板愈合状态的方法的诊断价值:第二眼关节镜检查,临床评估和磁共振成像之间的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: The main diagnostic methods for evaluating repaired menisci include second-look arthroscopy, clinical assessment, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). None of the previous studies applied all 3 methods for each consecutive case nor made any systematic comparison among them. PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to compare the diagnostic values of the 3 different methods in an attempt to propose suggestions for evaluating meniscal healing results. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Eighty-one patients (89 menisci), with a mean age of 25.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 7.7; range, 15-50 years), underwent arthroscopic meniscal repair, including 65 medial menisci and 24 lateral menisci. Follow-up evaluation for each meniscus included clinical assessment, second-look arthroscopy, and postoperative MRI, with a mean follow-up time of 25.4 months (SD, 6.0; range, 17.4-48.3 months). Defined criteria for unhealed meniscus were any symptoms such as joint-line tenderness, swelling, locking, or positive McMurray test for clinical assessment; cleft or instability on second-look arthroscopy; and grade 3 signal intensity shown at the repaired site on postoperative MRI. RESULTS: Seventy-seven menisci were confirmed completely healed by second-look arthroscopy, with a total healing rate of 86.5%. Clinical assessment found 63 menisci healed, with a clinical healing rate of 70.8% (sensitivity, 58.3%; specificity, 75.3%; accuracy, 73.0%). By using the second-look arthroscopy as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, respectively, were calculated for MRI in 5 sequences: sagittal T1: 91.7%, 58.4%, 62.9%; sagittal proton density (PD): 83.3%, 40.3%, 46.1%; sagittal T2: 58.3%, 89.6%, 85.4%; coronal PD: 75.0%, 74.0%, 74.2%; and coronal T2: 41.7%, 98.7%, 91.0%. CONCLUSION: Second-look arthroscopy was the most dependable way to determine meniscal healing. Clinical assessment had obvious limitations in diagnosing healed menisci. On MRI examination, T2-weighted sequences had obviously higher specificity and accuracy, while PD and T1 had higher sensitivity. The diagnostic value could be improved by a combined application of different sequences.
机译:背景:评估半月板修复的主要诊断方法包括第二眼关节镜检查,临床评估和磁共振成像(MRI)。以前的研究都没有对每种连续病例应用所有3种方法,也没有对它们进行任何系统的比较。目的:本研究旨在比较3种不同方法的诊断价值,以期提出评估半月板愈合结果的建议。研究设计:队列研究(诊断);证据等级:2。方法:81例患者接受了关节镜半月板修复,平均年龄为25.4岁(标准差[SD]为7.7;范围为15至50岁),其中65例为半月板内侧。和24个半月板。每个半月板的随访评估包括临床评估,二次检查关节镜和术后MRI,平均随访时间为25.4个月(SD,6.0;范围:17.4-48.3个月)。半月板未治愈的定义标准是任何症状,例如关节压痛,肿胀,锁定或临床评估的McMurray测试阳性;第二眼关节镜检查出现left裂或不稳定;术后MRI修复部位显示3级信号强度。结果:第二眼关节镜检查证实半月板治愈了77例,总治愈率为86.5%。临床评估发现63例半月板愈合,临床治愈率为70.8%(敏感性为58.3%;特异性为75.3%;准确性为73.0%)。以第二眼关节镜为标准,分别以5个序列计算MRI的敏感性,特异性和准确性:矢状位T1:91.7%,58.4%,62.9%;矢状位T1:91.7%,58.4%,62.9%;矢状质子密度(PD):83.3%,40.3%,46.1%;矢状T2:58.3%,89.6%,85.4%;冠状动脉PD:75.0%,74.0%,74.2%;和冠状T2:41.7%,98.7%,91.0%。结论:第二眼关节镜检查是确定半月板愈合的最可靠方法。临床评估在诊断半月板愈合方面有明显的局限性。在MRI检查中,T2加权序列具有明显更高的特异性和准确性,而PD和T1具有更高的敏感性。通过组合应用不同序列可以提高诊断价值。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号