Effectiveness of Rehabilitation for Knee Osteoarthritis Associated With Isolated Meniscus Injury: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Meniscus tear is the most common type of injury to the meniscus and occurs more frequently on the medial compartments than the lateral compartments. Further, it is often caused by trauma or degenerative processes and can occur anywhere on either the meniscus, anterior horn, posterior horn, or midbody. Treatment of meniscus injuries is likely to greatly impact the evolution of osteoarthritis (OA) as meniscus injuries can gradually progress to knee OA. Hence, treatment of these injuries is important for managing the progression of OA. While the types of meniscus injuries and symptoms have been reported previously, the effectiveness of rehabilitation according to the degree of meniscus injury (e.g., vertical, longitudinal, radial, and posterior horn tears) remains unknown. In this review, we aimed to investigate whether rehabilitation for knee OA associated with isolated meniscus injuries varies with the degree of injury and determine the effects of rehabilitation on outcomes. We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database for studies published before September 2021. Studies on ≥40-year-old patients with knee OA and isolated meniscus injury were included for analysis. The types of meniscus injury were classified as longitudinal, radial, transverse, flap, combined, or avulsion of the anterior and posterior roots of the medial meniscus, and assigned knee arthropathy grades of 0-4 according to the Kellgren-Lawrence classification. The exclusion criteria were meniscus injury, combined meniscus and ligament injury, and knee OA associated with combined injury in patients <40 years of age. There were no restrictions on the region, race, or gender of participants, or language or research format of the studies. The outcome measures were the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Score, Visual Analog Scale or Numeric Rating Scale, Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool, International Knee Documentation Committee Score, Lysholm Score, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, one-leg hop test, timed up and go test, and re-injury and muscle strength. A total of 16 reports met these criteria. In studies that did not classify or distinguish degrees of meniscus injury, the effects of rehabilitation were generally favorable in the medium-to-long term. In cases where the intervention was not sufficiently effective, patients were recommended either arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or total knee replacement. Studies on medial meniscus posterior root tear did not confirm the effectiveness of rehabilitation due to the short intervention period. Further, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score cut-offs, clinically important differences in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and minimum important changes in patient-specific functional scales were reported. Of the 16 studies reported in this review, nine met the definition. This scoping review has a few limitations such as the effect of rehabilitation alone could not be examined, and the intervention effectiveness differed at short-term follow-up. In conclusion, there was a gap in evidence regarding the rehabilitation of knee OA after isolated meniscus injury due to differences in intervention duration and methods. In addition, on short-term follow-up, intervention effects varied across studies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».