A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents
the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website
or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.
Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10195-017-0454-y.pdf
Letter to the editor regarding the article: “All-inside meniscal repair surgery: factors affecting the outcome” by Haroon Majeed et al.
J Orthop Traumatol
Letter to the editor regarding the article: ''All-inside meniscal repair surgery: factors affecting the outcome'' by Haroon Majeed et al.
Alexander Zimmerer 0 1 2
0 ARCUS Sportklinik Pforzheim , Rastatterstr. 17-19, 75179 Pforzheim , Germany
1 & Alexander Zimmerer
2 To the Editor
-
I read the study ‘‘All-inside meniscal repair surgery: factors
affecting the outcome’’ by Majeed et al. [1] with great
interest.
The authors assessed the outcome of meniscal repair
surgery and the role of anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction. They found that meniscal repair failure rate was
higher in the delayed anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)
reconstruction group compared to patients who had ACL
reconstruction performed early. One of their conclusions
was ‘‘Our results have shown that the outcome of meniscal
repair is statistically significantly better if ACL
reconstruction is performed simultaneously with the meniscal
repair (p = 0.0006)’’.
However, I noted irregularities in these results.
According to the data, ligament injuries were found in 83
patients along with meniscal tears. ‘‘Of these 83 patients
with ruptured ligaments, 55 had simultaneous ACL
reconstruction or reconstruction performed within six
weeks of injury, while 26 had their ACL reconstructed at a
later stage following an initial meniscal repair (after six
weeks of injury)’’. This results in 81 patients having had
ACL reconstruction.
The authors found ‘‘that patients who had ACL
reconstruction performed early (…) had a meniscal repair failure
rate of 14.5% (n = 12)’’. However, if the 12 patients
referred to the number of patients with early ACL
reconstruction (n = 55), the proportion is 21.8% (12/55).
Similarly, the proportion of patients with delayed ACL
reconstruction does not seem to be correct. ‘‘In
comparison, patients who had delayed ACL reconstruction (…)
had a meniscal repair failure rate of 27% (n = 22;
p = 0.0006)’’. Referring the 22 patients to the total number
of patients with delayed ACL reconstruction (n = 26), the
proportion should be 84.6% (22/26). The percentages given
in the article refer to the total number of patients who had
ACL reconstruction (n = 81, 12/81 = 14.5%;
22/81 = 27%).
In Table 1 [1] (Summary of outcomes for patients who
underwent meniscal repair) the success percentage is given
as 86% in the simultaneous ACL reconstruction group and
77% in the delayed ACL reconstruction group. This would
result in 47 patients with successful meniscal repair and 8
patients with failed repair in the simultaneous ACL
reconstruction group, and 20 patients with successful
meniscal repair and 6 patients with failed repair in the
delayed ACL reconstruction group.
By taking these numbers into consideration, there still
might be a statistically significant difference; however, the
numbers should certainly be recalculated to state the given
conclusion in the article.
Note from the Editorial Office: the Corresponding
Author of the article commented on (H.M.) was invited to
submit a response letter, which would have been published.
The Author preferred to contact the Executive Editor by
mail to confirm the miscalculation, that nevertheless would
not have influenced the conclusions.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.
Conflict of interest The author declares that he has no conflict of
interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution.
Patient consent No informed consent was necessary.
Ethical approval No authorization by the local ethics committee
was necessary.
Funding None.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// (...truncated)