Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Studies have shown an association between medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRT) and morphologic characteristics of the bone. However, the association between distal femoral bone morphology and MMPRT, particularly the medial femoral posterior condyle, is poorly understood. Our study aimed to determine the association between the morphologic characteristics of the medial posterior femoral condyle and MMPRT.
Methods: A retrospective case-control study was performed from January 2021 to January 2022. After screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two matched groups were analyzed: the MMPRT group and the isolated lateral meniscus tears group. The hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) and Kellgren-Lawrence grade (KLG) were measured on radiographs; the medial tibial slope angle (MTSA), medial tibial plateau depth (MTPD), and radius of the medial femoral posterior condyle (RMFPC) were measured on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in both groups. The area under the curve (AUC) and the best cutoff value for predicting MMPRT were calculated by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
Results: The final analysis included a total of 174 patients (87 MMPRT patients and 87 controls). Significant differences were shown in the RMFPC (17.6 ± 1.0 vs. 16.2 ± 1.0, p < 0.01) and MTSA (6.4 ± 2.0 vs. 4.0 ± 1.3, p < 0.01), which were larger than those of the control group. The MTPD (1.8 ± 0.6 vs. 2.9 ± 0.7, p < 0.01) and HKA (175.4 ± 2.2 vs. 179.0 ± 2.7, p < 0.01) of the injury group were significantly different from the control group, and both were lower than the control group. However, between the MMPRT and control groups on the KLG (2.3 ± 0.6 vs. 2.2 ± 0.6, p = 0.209), there was no statistically significant difference. Among them, the RMFPC cutoff value was calculated to be 16.8 mm by ROC curve analysis, and the sensitivity and specificity were both 81.61%.
Conclusions: This study demonstrated that larger RMFPC, MTSA, smaller MTPD, and HKA were all associated with MMPRT, and RMFPC ≥ 16.8 mm was considered as a significant risk factor for MMPRT.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11293118 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07730-5 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!