Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026 · 系統性回顧＋統合分析（依標題推測）
Medial meniscus posterior root repair with concomitant centralization does not demonstrate superior reduction of meniscal extrusion or improved clinical outcomes compared with isolated repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis
膝 · 全膝關節置換術
中文閱讀摘要
系統性回顧與統合分析顯示，內側月後根修復加中央化較單獨修復，月外移及臨床結果無顯著差異，證據有限。
AI 依來源摘要整理，未經人工逐篇核對。閱讀結論前，請回溯研究族群、方法與限制。
原始摘要
Purpose
To evaluate whether the addition of a meniscal centralization procedure to medial meniscus posterior root (MMPR) repair improves medial meniscus extrusion (MME) and patient-reported outcomes compared with isolated MMPR repair.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and Scopus were searched from inception to 28 February 2026. Comparative studies evaluating isolated MMPR repair versus MMPR repair combined with centralization procedure (including transtibial pull-out repair, posteromedial pull-out repair with all-inside sutures and anchor-based techniques) and reporting radiographic extrusion measured by magnetic resonance imaging and/or patient-reported outcomes were included. Effect estimates were calculated using change scores. Mean differences (MDs) were used for extrusion, and standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for patient-reported outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic, and pooled estimates were generated using a random-effects model.
Results
Six comparative studies (one randomized controlled trial [RCT] and five retrospective cohort studies) comprising 309 patients (167 isolated repair; 142 centralization repair) with a mean follow-up period of 11.2 months (range, 3-26.8 months) were included. Participants were predominantly female, with mean age of 50.3-66.4 years, body mass index of 22.5-29 kg/m 2 and Kellgren-Lawrence ≤ 2. The overall pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference in MME reduction between centralization and isolated repair (MD 0.4 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.34 to 1.22; p = 0.27; I 2 = 89%). Although post-operative MME was lower in the centralization group (3.3 vs. 3.8 mm), the absolute difference between groups was only 0.6 mm, suggesting limited clinical relevance. No significant differences were observed between groups in Lysholm (p = 0.93), International Knee Documentation Committee (p = 0.13) or visual analogue scale pain scores (p = 0.10). Reporting of complications was inconsistent, with no conversions to total knee arthroplasty during follow-up.
Conclusions
The addition of a meniscal centralization to MMPR repair does not demonstrate a consistent reduction in meniscal extrusion or improvement in patient-reported outcomes compared with isolated MMPR repair. Given the heterogeneity of the current evidence and the predominance of non-randomized studies, further high-quality RCTs are required to clarify its clinical value.
Level of evidence
Level II.
至 Europe PMC 閱讀完整來源 ↗ · 擷取日期 2026-10-19
書目、來源與全文狀態
- DOI
- 10.1002/ksa.70583
- PMID／PMCID
- 42646642
- 作者
- Vasiliadis AV, Gkekas NK, Maris A, Colyvas N, Hantes M
- 首次發表日期
- 2026-08-26Europe PMC 提供，部分日期可能依年份或月份推定。
- 卷／期／頁碼或文章編號
- 卷未提供 ／ 期未提供 ／ 頁碼或文章編號未提供
- 書目來源與查核日期
- Europe PMC · 2026-10-19僅核對書目欄位與來源連結；不代表已評讀研究品質。
- 全文與授權
- 來源尚未確認免費全文。 來源授權標示：cc by。
可回溯引用
Vasiliadis AV, Gkekas NK, Maris A, Colyvas N, Hantes M. Medial meniscus posterior root repair with concomitant centralization does not demonstrate superior reduction of meniscal extrusion or improved clinical outcomes compared with isolated repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA. 2026. PMID: 42646642. doi:10.1002/ksa.70583
本站供教育與研究參考。單篇摘要、文體標籤與期刊影響係數不等於證據品質或個別病人的診療建議。