Survey among AGA-Society for Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery members on meniscal suture systems: User numbers, tips and tricks, sources of errors
Arthroskopie, ISSN: 1434-3924, Vol: 34, Issue: 4, Page: 274-282
2021
- 1Citations
- 3Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Background: Various meniscal suture systems and techniques are available for treatment of a ruptured meniscus. All-inside systems in particular have recently been increasingly criticized through legal decisions. Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze the treatment reality among members of the AGA- Society for Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery for the treatment of meniscal tears as well as to summarize the reported advantages and disadvantages. Material and methods: An online questionnaire was sent to the 4200 members of the AGA and after 3 reminders 516 completed the questionnaire. The answers to the different questions were collected and analyzed using Excel. Free text answers were collected and summarized according to frequency. Results: The most popular suture systems were all-inside systems, especially when the rupture zone involved the posterior horns. For tears in the pars intermedia, surgeons frequently opted for an outside-in technique, whereby 47.3% of the surgeons reported that up to 90% of meniscal injuries would be technically much more challenging or even irreparable if all-inside techniques were not available. Furthermore, it was noted that in this case the operative time would be increased by approximately 30 min or even more. A frequent problem of all-inside systems was reported to be intraoperative dislocation of the suture anchors, which in most cases could be overcome by holding together with a probe. With respect to aftercare the survey revealed that the majority of participating members of the AGA preferred partial weight-bearing (20 kg) for 6 weeks following meniscal repair and limitation of flexion with a gradual increase. Conclusion: This survey highlighted the importance of the various suture systems, especially of all-inside techniques. Nevertheless, surgeons should be aware of the potential risks and disadvantages of each technique, which however, can be substantially reduced by consideration of various technical tricks.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85106418039&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00142-021-00465-8; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00142-021-00465-8; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00142-021-00465-8.pdf; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00142-021-00465-8/fulltext.html; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00142-021-00465-8; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00142-021-00465-8
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know