可吸收与不可吸收缝线在经胫骨拉出修复内侧半月板后根部撕裂中的比较：系统评价与Meta分析
简介
这项系统综述与Meta分析纳入16项研究、647例内侧半月板后根经胫骨拉出修复术患者，比较可吸收与不可吸收缝线的临床及影像学结局。结果显示两组在IKDC评分、Lysholm评分、半月板挤压、MRI愈合率、KL分级进展及TKA转换率方面均无显著差异，但可吸收缝线的TKA转换比例（22%）高于不可吸收组（5%）。由于证据主要来自异质性研究的间接比较，目前尚不足以…
英文摘要
BACKGROUND: Transtibial pull-out repair is widely used for the treatment of medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMRTs). However, the optimal suture material remains unclear despite differences in biomechanical and biological properties between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures. This study aimed to evaluate whether suture material influences clinical and radiological outcomes after transtibial pull-out repair for MMRTs through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies reporting clinical or radiological outcomes after transtibial pull-out repair for MMRTs were included. Extracted data included patient-reported outcomes, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based meniscal healing, meniscal extrusion, Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade progression, and conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Random-effects meta-analyses and subgroup analyses were performed according to suture absorbability, and meta-regression was used to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Sixteen studies encompassing 647 patients were included; these comprised one Level II study, seven Level III studies, and eight Level IV studies. No significant subgroup differences according to suture absorbability were identified for changes in International Knee Documentation Committee score (P = 0.07), Lysholm score (P = 0.43), meniscal extrusion (P = 0.19), MRI-based meniscal healing (P = 0.77), KL grade progression (P = 0.75), or conversion to TKA (P = 0.06). The pooled healing proportions were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.33-0.82) for non-absorbable sutures and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.00-1.00) for absorbable sutures. The corresponding pooled proportions of conversion to TKA were 0.05 (95% CI, 0.00-1.00) and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.10-0.38), respectively. CONCLUSION: The available evidence did not identify statistically significant differences in clinical or radiological outcomes between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures after transtibial pull-out repair for MMRTs. However, because these findings were derived primarily from indirect comparisons across heterogeneous studies, they should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalence, and the current evidence remains insufficient to determine whether suture absorbability independently influences postoperative outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; systematic review and meta-analysis of Level II-IV studies.