Better outcome from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy than skin incisions only? A sham-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 35–55 years with knee pain and an MRI-verified meniscal tear. Issue 2 (2nd February 2018)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Better outcome from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy than skin incisions only? A sham-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 35–55 years with knee pain and an MRI-verified meniscal tear. Issue 2 (2nd February 2018)
- Main Title:
- Better outcome from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy than skin incisions only? A sham-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 35–55 years with knee pain and an MRI-verified meniscal tear
- Authors:
- Roos, Ewa M
Hare, Kristoffer Borbjerg
Nielsen, Sabrina Mai
Christensen, Robin
Lohmander, L Stefan - Abstract:
- Abstract : Objective: Compare arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to a true sham intervention. Methods: Sham-controlled superiority trial performed in three county hospitals in Denmark comparing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to skin incisions only in patients aged 35–55 years with persistent knee pain and an MRI-confirmed medial meniscus lesion. A computer-generated table of random numbers generated two comparison groups. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Exclusions were locking knees, high-energy trauma or severe osteoarthritis. Outcomes were collected at baseline, 3 and 24 months. We hypothesised no difference between groups. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change from baseline to 2 years in the mean score across all five normalised Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales (KOOS5 ). Results: Forty-four patients (of the estimated 72) underwent randomisation; 22 in each group. Sixteen participants (36%) were non-blinded and eight participants (36%) from the sham group crossed over to the surgery group prior to the 2-year follow-up. At 2 years, both groups reported clinically relevant improvements (surgery 21.8, skin incisions only 13.6), the mean difference between groups was 8.2 in favour of surgery, which is slightly less than the cut-off of 10 prespecified to represent a clinically relevant difference; judged by the 95% CI (−3.4 to 19.8), a possibility of clinically relevant difference couldAbstract : Objective: Compare arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to a true sham intervention. Methods: Sham-controlled superiority trial performed in three county hospitals in Denmark comparing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to skin incisions only in patients aged 35–55 years with persistent knee pain and an MRI-confirmed medial meniscus lesion. A computer-generated table of random numbers generated two comparison groups. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Exclusions were locking knees, high-energy trauma or severe osteoarthritis. Outcomes were collected at baseline, 3 and 24 months. We hypothesised no difference between groups. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change from baseline to 2 years in the mean score across all five normalised Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales (KOOS5 ). Results: Forty-four patients (of the estimated 72) underwent randomisation; 22 in each group. Sixteen participants (36%) were non-blinded and eight participants (36%) from the sham group crossed over to the surgery group prior to the 2-year follow-up. At 2 years, both groups reported clinically relevant improvements (surgery 21.8, skin incisions only 13.6), the mean difference between groups was 8.2 in favour of surgery, which is slightly less than the cut-off of 10 prespecified to represent a clinically relevant difference; judged by the 95% CI (−3.4 to 19.8), a possibility of clinically relevant difference could not be excluded. In total, nine participants experienced 11 adverse events; six in the surgery group and three in the skin-incisions-only group. Conclusion: We found greater improvement from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared with skin incisions only at 2 years, with the statistical uncertainty of the between-group difference including what could be considered clinically relevant. Because of the study being underpowered, nearly half in the sham group being non-blinded and one-third crossing over to surgery, the results cannot be generalised to the greater patient population. Trial registration number: NCT01264991 . … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- BMJ open. Volume 8:Issue 2(2018)
- Journal:
- BMJ open
- Issue:
- Volume 8:Issue 2(2018)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 8, Issue 2 (2018)
- Year:
- 2018
- Volume:
- 8
- Issue:
- 2
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2018-0008-0002-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2018-02-02
- Subjects:
- knee -- adult orthopaedics -- musculoskeletal disorders -- orthopaedic sports trauma
Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals
610.72 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.bmj.com/archive ↗
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019461 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 2044-6055
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 17708.xml