Influence of Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features on Outcome of Arthroscopic Meniscectomy and Physical Therapy Treatment of Meniscal Tears in Osteoarthritis.
epidemiology
meniscectomy
meniscus
osteoarthritis
Journal
The American journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 1552-3365
Titre abrégé: Am J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7609541
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
18
1
2019
medline:
14
2
2020
entrez:
18
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is used to treat meniscal tears, although its efficacy is controversial. This study used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine characteristics that lead to greater benefit from APM and physical therapy (PT) than from PT alone among patients with meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Using data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, the authors first assessed whether the effect of treatment on pain scores at 6 months differed according to baseline MRI features (bone marrow lesions, cartilage and meniscal damage). Second, the authors summed MRI features associated with differential pain relief between APM and PT to create a "damage score," which included bone marrow lesion number and cartilage damage size with possible values of 0 (least damage), 1 (moderate), and 2 (greatest). The authors used linear models to determine whether the association between damage score and pain relief at 6 months differed for APM versus PT. The study included 220 participants: 13%, had the least damage; 52%, moderate; and 34%, greatest. Although treatment type did not significantly modify the association of damage score and change in pain ( P interaction = .13), those with the least damage and moderate damage had greater improvement with APM than with PT in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale-by 15 and 7 points, respectively. Those with the greatest damage had a similar improvement with APM and PT. Among patients with osteoarthritis and meniscal tear, those with less intra-articular damage on MRI may have greater improvement in pain with APM and PT than with PT alone. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously owing to the limited sample size.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is used to treat meniscal tears, although its efficacy is controversial.
PURPOSE
This study used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine characteristics that lead to greater benefit from APM and physical therapy (PT) than from PT alone among patients with meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis.
STUDY DESIGN
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS
Using data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, the authors first assessed whether the effect of treatment on pain scores at 6 months differed according to baseline MRI features (bone marrow lesions, cartilage and meniscal damage). Second, the authors summed MRI features associated with differential pain relief between APM and PT to create a "damage score," which included bone marrow lesion number and cartilage damage size with possible values of 0 (least damage), 1 (moderate), and 2 (greatest). The authors used linear models to determine whether the association between damage score and pain relief at 6 months differed for APM versus PT.
RESULTS
The study included 220 participants: 13%, had the least damage; 52%, moderate; and 34%, greatest. Although treatment type did not significantly modify the association of damage score and change in pain ( P interaction = .13), those with the least damage and moderate damage had greater improvement with APM than with PT in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale-by 15 and 7 points, respectively. Those with the greatest damage had a similar improvement with APM and PT.
CONCLUSION
Among patients with osteoarthritis and meniscal tear, those with less intra-articular damage on MRI may have greater improvement in pain with APM and PT than with PT alone. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously owing to the limited sample size.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30653921
doi: 10.1177/0363546518819444
pmc: PMC6397058
mid: NIHMS1009678
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
612-619Subventions
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : K24 AR057827
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : P60 AR047782
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 AR055557
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 AR055885
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Arthroscopy. 2016 Nov;32(11):2187-2190
pubmed: 27816090
Contemp Clin Trials. 2012 Nov;33(6):1189-96
pubmed: 22968127
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017 Jan;25(1):76-84
pubmed: 27539889
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jul;41(7):1565-70
pubmed: 23703915
N Engl J Med. 2013 May 2;368(18):1675-84
pubmed: 23506518
N Engl J Med. 2013 Dec 26;369(26):2515-24
pubmed: 24369076
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Aug;53(8):786-92
pubmed: 10942860
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Aug;28(2):88-96
pubmed: 9699158
J Rheumatol. 1992 Dec;19(12):1938-42
pubmed: 1294743
BMJ. 2016 Jul 20;354:i3740
pubmed: 27440192
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011 Aug;19(8):990-1002
pubmed: 21645627
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jan;85(1):4-9
pubmed: 12533565
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Jun 1;93(11):994-1000
pubmed: 21531866
N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 11;359(11):1108-15
pubmed: 18784100
Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):203-12
pubmed: 21330563
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Apr;15(4):393-401
pubmed: 17216272
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Nov;22(11):1808-16
pubmed: 25086401
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Nov 03;1:64
pubmed: 14613558
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006 May;14(5):418-22
pubmed: 16413210
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Dec;203(6):1286-92
pubmed: 25415707