To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy & sham surgery similar for degenerative meniscal tear

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
January 2014

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy & sham surgery similar for degenerative meniscal tear

Vol: 3| Issue: 1| Number:27| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Randomized Trial
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear

N Engl J Med. 2013 Dec 26;369(26):2515-24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1305189

Contributing Authors:
R Sihvonen M Paavola A Malmivaara A Itala A Joukainen H Nurmi J Kalske TL Jarvinen Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study (FIDELITY) Group

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

146 patients with degenerative meniscal tears were randomized to determine the efficacy of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Participants underwent either arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or sham-arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, and were assessed for 12 months postoperatively. The results indicated that outcomes for the group receiving arthroscopic partial meniscectomy did not significantly di...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue