• Jeffrey N Katz, Sarah A Brownlee, and Morgan H Jones.
• Orthopedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Orthopedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Division of Rheumatology, Immunology and Allergy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: jnkatz@partners.org.
• Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014 Feb 1;28(1):143-56.

AbstractTechnological advances throughout the 20th century enabled an increase in arthroscopic knee surgery, particularly arthroscopic debridement for osteoarthritis (OA) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for symptomatic meniscal tear in the setting of OA. However, evaluation of the outcomes of these procedures lagged behind their rising popularity. Not until the early 2000s were rigorous outcomes studies conducted; these showed that arthroscopic debridement for OA was no better than a sham procedure in relieving knee pain or improving functional status, and that patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for a degenerative meniscal tear generally did not show more improvement than those who underwent sham meniscal resection or an intensive course of physical therapy. Though the number of arthroscopic knee procedures for OA performed each year has begun to decline, there remains a significant gap between the evidence and actual practice. Further investigation is needed to shore up the evidence base and bring policy and practice in line with rigorous research.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…