Search

Background: It is unknown whether the treatment effects of partial meniscectomy and physical therapy differ when focusing on activities most valued by patients with degenerative meniscal tears., Purpose: To compare partial meniscectomy with physical therapy in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear, focusing on patients' most important functional limitations as the outcome., Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1., Methods: This study is part of the Cost-effectiveness of Early Surgery versus Conservative Treatment with Optional Delayed Meniscectomy for Patients over 45 years with non-obstructive meniscal tears (ESCAPE) trial, a multicenter noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 9 orthopaedic hospital departments in the Netherlands. The ESCAPE trial included 321 patients aged between 45 and 70 years with a symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed meniscal tear. Exclusion criteria were severe osteoarthritis, body mass index >35 kg/m 2 , locking of the knee, and prior knee surgery or knee instability due to an anterior or posterior cruciate ligament rupture. This study compared partial meniscectomy with physical therapy consisting of a supervised incremental exercise protocol of 16 sessions over 8 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Dutch-language equivalent of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), a secondary outcome measure of the ESCAPE trial. We used crude and adjusted linear mixed-model analyses to reveal the between-group differences over 24 months. We calculated the minimal important change for the PSFS using an anchor-based method., Results: After 24 months, 286 patients completed the follow-up. The partial meniscectomy group (n = 139) improved on the PSFS by a mean of 4.8 ± 2.6 points (from 6.8 ± 1.9 to 2.0 ± 2.2), and the physical therapy group (n = 147) improved by a mean of 4.0 ± 3.1 points (from 6.7 ± 2.0 to 2.7 ± 2.5). The crude overall between-group difference showed a -0.6-point difference (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.2; P = .004) in favor of the partial meniscectomy group. This improvement was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful, as the calculated minimal important change was 2.5 points on an 11-point scale., Conclusion: Both interventions were associated with a clinically meaningful improvement regarding patients' most important functional limitations. Although partial meniscectomy was associated with a statistically larger improvement at some follow-up time points, the difference compared with physical therapy was small and clinically not meaningful at any follow-up time point., Registration: NCT01850719 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier) and NTR3908 (the Netherlands Trial Register)., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: Funding for the ESCAPE trial was provided by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; grant 837002009), Zilveren Kruis (grant Z436), and the foundation of medical research of OLVG (grant 15u.025). The funders had no role in designing and conducting this study; the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Objective: Does the use of staples or sutures for wound closure have a lower surgical site infection rate in patients receiving primary total hip arthroplasty (THA)?, Design: Prospective, randomised controlled multicentre trial., Methods: 535 patients undergoing THA were included and randomised into 2 groups: 268 wounds were closed with staples, and 267 with sutures. Primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI). Secondary outcomes were prosthetic joint infection (PJI), other wound complications (dehiscence, necrosis and prolonged drainage) and duration of admittance. Follow-up occurred at 2, 6, and 12 weeks, and at 1 year., Results: There were no significant demographic differences between the 2 groups. SSI occurred more frequently when wounds were closed with staples (4% compared to 1% with sutures; OR 2.8; CI, 0.885-0.952; p  = 0.057). SSI was treated with oral antibiotics. The staples group showed significantly more wound complications (17% compared to 5%; OR 3.943, CI 2.073-7.498; p  = 0.000). Wound discharge was significantly prolonged in the staples group ( n  = 40, compared to n  = 12 in the sutures group; OR 3.728; CI, 1.909-7.281; p  = 0.000). There was no significant difference in PJI ( p  = 0.364)., Conclusions: In this large RCT comparing staples with sutures after THA, the use of staples is associated with a nearly 3 times greater risk of SSI (OR 2.8; p  = 0.057). Staples significantly prolong wound discharge. The use of sutures for wound closure after THA is advised. Trial registration: Staples Or Sutures trial (S.O.S. trial) http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=3946 , NTR3946.