Key PointsQuestion
Is inpatient and/or outpatient rehabilitation associated with better recovery compared with home-based rehabilitation after arthroscopic isolated meniscectomy?
Findings
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared home-based rehabilitation vs inpatient and/or outpatient rehabilitation after arthroscopic isolated meniscectomy, including 8 randomized clinical trials with a total of 434 participants. Inpatient and/or outpatient rehabilitation was not associated with better outcomes in terms of knee function (Lysholm score) at both short-term and midterm follow-up.
Meaning
These findings suggest that home-based rehabilitation is a suitable option for recovery after arthroscopic isolated meniscectomy in the general population.
Importance
Arthroscopic meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures. The optimal postoperative approach remains debated.
Objective
To compare outcomes associated with home-based rehabilitation programs (HBP) vs standard inpatient and/or outpatient supervised physical therapy (IOP) following arthroscopic isolated meniscectomy (AM).
Data Sources
A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases on March 15, 2021. The included studies were published from 1982 to 2019.
Study Selection
Randomized clinical trials of patients treated with HBP vs IOP after AM were included.
Data Extraction and Synthesis
Data were independently screened and extracted by 2 authors according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model; when an I2 < 25% was observed, the fixed-effect model was used. The Hartung-Knapp correction was applied.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was the Lysholm score (scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better knee function) and secondary outcomes were subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, knee extension and flexion, thigh girth, horizontal and vertical hop test, and days to return to work, as indicated in the PROSPERO registration. Outcomes were measured in the short-term (ranging from 28 to 50 days) and the midterm (6 months).
Results
In this meta-analysis of 8 RCTs including 434 patients, IOP was associated with a greater short-term improvement in Lysholm score compared with HBP, with a mean difference of −8.64 points (95% CI, −15.14 to −2.13 points; P = .02) between the 2 approached, but the sensitivity analysis showed no difference. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was detected at midterm for Lysholm score, with a mean difference between groups of −4.78 points (95% CI, −9.98 to 0.42 points; P = .07). HBP was associated with a greater short-term improvement in thigh girth, with a mean difference between groups of 1.38 cm (95% CI, 0.27 to 2.48 cm; P = .01), whereas IOP was associated with a better short-term vertical hop score, with a mean difference between groups of −3.25 cm (95% CI, −6.20 to −0.29 cm; P = .03). No differences were found for all the other secondary outcomes.
Conclusions and Relevance
No intervention was found to be superior in terms of physical and functional outcomes as well as work-related and patient-reported outcomes, both at short-term and midterm follow-up. Overall, these results suggest that HBP may be an effective management approach after AM in the general population.
Meniscus injuries occur in physically active individuals, as well as members of the general population,1-4 with annual incidence rates of 66 to 70 per 100 000 persons reported.5-7 Meniscectomies are a primary risk factor for knee osteoarthritis,8-13 which led to efforts toward developing solutions to preserve or restore as much meniscal tissue as possible.14-18 Unfortunately, surgical intervention is not always avoidable, and arthroscopic isolated meniscectomy (AM) remains one of the most commonly performed orthopedic procedures.19,20
AM is a procedure in which a damaged meniscus is partially or completely removed. This entails a surgical trauma to the knee requiring postoperative management to facilitate the restoration of normal joint function. Numerous studies have investigated post-AM treatments during the previous decades.21 Nevertheless, the optimal postoperative approach is debated.22 Some authors investigated home-based rehabilitation programs (HBP) instead of standard inpatient and/or outpatient supervised physical therapy (IOP). In view of the high number of AM procedures performed globally, their societal impact and costs,23,24 and considering that HBP confers a cost reduction compared with IOP,25 understanding the potential and limitations of HBP-based AM postoperative management would be of substantial relevance for patients, physicians, and health care systems worldwide. Moreover, this is particularly relevant in the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario, whereby limiting the need for travel and personal contacts for face-to-face clinical consultations, including treatment exposure required by classical IOP approaches, is of utmost importance.26-28 The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes associated with HBP vs standard IOP after AM.
Search Strategy and Article Selection
The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020188377), and a systematic literature search was conducted on March 15, 2021, in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus using the following string: (physical therapy OR physiotherapy OR rehabilitation OR exercise OR exercise therapy OR home exercise program OR home exercise therapy OR home exercise) AND meniscectomy. Patients who underwent AM with postoperative HBT or IOP management were considered eligible. Duplicates were removed and records were screened for eligibility by title and abstract with whole text screening undertaken when required. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in eTable 1 in the Supplement. This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.29 The selection of studies was independently performed by 2 authors (S.N. and M.C.) with disagreements solved by consensus or by the intervention of a third author (M.D.) to assess the relevance of the articles which were considered then for the next step.
Data Extraction, Synthesis, and Measurement of Outcomes
Data from the included studies were independently extracted by 2 authors (S.N. and M.C.) following Cochrane recommendations.30 Patients’ characteristics and clinical outcomes of treatments were extracted as follows: number of patients screened, included, and assessed at follow-up, patients’ presurgical and postsurgical Lysholm score (primary outcome) and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (both ranging from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and disability), knee joint flexion and extension (degrees), thigh girth (centimeters), vertical and horizontal single-leg hop test (centimeters), and time to return to work in days (secondary outcomes). The outcome measures were classified as (1) patient-reported outcomes: Lysholm score, subjective IKDC score; (2) physical outcomes: knee flexion, knee extension, thigh girth; (3) functional outcomes: single hop test, vertical hop test; and (4) work-related outcomes: days needed to return to work. Details are reported in the Table. Missing information was requested by contacting the corresponding author of the relevant study.
The risk of bias of each included study was evaluated using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.31 The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was rated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.32 The statistical analysis of primary and secondary outcomes was performed to compare HBP and IOP effectiveness following isolated AM. When data from the same study population were available at different follow-ups, the closest to 6 weeks were selected for the short-term evaluation. A separate midterm analysis was performed after 3 months. In all cases, the actual point in time scores were meta-analyzed. The inverse variance method for continuous variables was used to measure the difference between the outcome measures with results expressed as mean differences (MD). Heterogeneity was tested using I2 metric and considered significant when I2 > 25%. As recommended by the article by Borenstein et al,33 the meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model under the assumption that significant differences among studies could not justify a fixed-effect model. As such, when an I2 < 25% was observed, the meta-analysis was reimplemented applying a fixed-effect model. A P value of .05 was set as the level of significance for the analysis with 2-sided testing. The Hartung-Knapp correction34 was applied to properly analyze the outcomes generated by few articles. When means and standard deviations were not reported in the included studies, they were obtained from medians and ranges with the estimation method proposed by Wan et al35 following the Cochrane guidelines.30 The statistical analysis was performed using R software version 1.2.5019 (R Project for Statistical Computing) with the meta (version 4.9-7), dmetar (version 0.0.9000), and metafor (version 2.1-0) packages in March 2021.
Study Selection and Patients’ Characteristics
The flowchart of the article selection process is reported in Figure 1. Out of the 1914 records retrieved, 8 studies were included23,36-42 and reported data that could be aggregated to be analyzed via meta-analysis (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4). All studies selected were RCTs published from 1982 to 2019 reporting on 434 individuals (age range: 21 to 74 years) and comparing HBP (209 participants) vs IOP (225 participants) after AM. All studies reported the participants’ gender, with an overall distribution of 332 men and 104 women. In one case where the data were published in a ratio fashion, the authors provided the original data to be included in the study.37
The IOP approach differed in the included studies in terms of interventions provided, but they all consisted of standard inpatient and/or outpatient supervised rehabilitation sessions (1:1), primarily comprising exercises with the addition of modalities37,41 such as EMG biofeedback training (EBT),40 EBT and neuromuscular electrical stimulation,36 soft-tissue treatments and manual therapy,37 and isokinetic training.41 The HBPs in the included studies were characterized by verbal and written with sometimes illustrated indications of the exercises. In one study, composed solely of an abstract with outcome-related data in a tabular format, HBP was delivered via internet-based rehabilitation.38 The follow-up length ranged from 28 days to 6 months. Details are reported in the Table.
Patient-Reported Outcomes
Meta-analysis of 5 studies showed an initial between-groups difference at short-term (range: 28 days to 3 months) favoring IOP; the MD was −8.64 points (95% CI, −15.14 to −2.13 points; P = .02). The greatest MD across the studies was 15.8 points (Figure 2A). Given that one paper included was a published abstract providing data in a tabular format,38 we performed a sensitivity analysis to ascertain the robustness of the meta-analysis outcome. Hence the primary meta-analysis was repeated restricting the analysis to the other included studies. The results differed from the original pooled-effect analysis displaying no difference (Figure 2B).
Meta-analysis of 2 studies did not show a between-groups difference at midterm after 6 months. The MD was −4.78 points (95% CI,−9.98 to 0.42 points; P = .07); the greatest MD found was 5.67 points (Figure 2C).
Meta-analysis of 5 studies did not show a between-groups short-term difference (range: 1 month to 6 weeks). The MD was −6.73 points (95% CI, −38.15 to 24.69 points; P = .22). The greatest MD found was 9.6 points (Figure 2D).
Knee Flexion and Extension
Meta-analysis of 4 studies did not show a between-groups short-term difference (range: 1 month to 6 weeks) in knee flexion; the MD was −7.40° (95% CI, −15.12° to 0.32°; P = .055). The greatest MD found was 12.2° (Figure 3A). Meta-analysis of 2 studies did not show a between-groups short-term difference (range: 1 month to 6 weeks) in knee extension; the MD was 0.55° (95% CI, −0.07° to 1.18°; P = .08). The greatest MD found was 0.9° (Figure 3B).
Meta-analysis of 3 studies showed a between-groups short-term difference (range: 1 month to 6 weeks) in thigh girth favoring HBP; the MD was 1.38 cm (95% CI, 0.27 to 2.48 cm; P = .01). The greatest MD found was 1.9 cm (Figure 3C).
Meta-analysis of 2 studies did not show a between-groups short-term difference (range: 28 to 50 days); the MD was −13.88 cm (95% CI, −30.23 to 2.47 cm; P = .10). The greatest MD found was 19.1 cm (Figure 4A).
Meta-analysis of 2 studies showed a between-groups short-term difference (range: 28 to 50 days), which favored IOP; the MD was −3.25 cm (95% CI, −6.20 to −0.29 cm; P = .03). The greatest MD found was 3.47 cm (Figure 4B).
Meta-analysis of 2 studies did not show a between-groups difference in time to return to work; the MD was 4.53 days (95% CI, −0.39 to 9.44 days; P = .07). The greatest MD found was 12.6 days (Figure 4C).
Risk of Bias and Level of Evidence
The risk of bias assessment was conducted by 2 independent reviewers (S.N. and M.C.); the interrater reliability (κ = 0.913) disagreement was solved by consensus. The assessment resulted in some concerns of risk of bias in 4 studies36,37,40,42 and high risk of bias in 4 other studies.23,38,39,41 The main reasons were the absence of intention-to-treat analyses, lack of assessor blinding, missing detailed information in the published papers, and absence of indications of preregistered study protocols that might result in selective reporting bias risk. Visualizations of the risk of bias assessment results are detailed in the eFigure in the Supplement, produced with the Risk of Bias Visualization Online Tool.43 A risk-of-bias detailed table is available in eTable 2 in the Supplement providing further information on the performed assessment. The GRADE evidence profile for all the plotted outcomes resulted in low to very low and is reported in eTable 3 in the Supplement, generated via the GRADEpro online Guideline Development Tool (GDT).44
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the outcomes of HBP vs standard IOP following isolated AM. No overall difference was documented in either the short-term or midterm across patient-reported outcomes, physical and functional outcomes, and work-related outcomes.
The retrieved data deserve a critical analysis. In fact, the first evaluation showed a short-term difference in terms of Lysholm score favoring IOP. However, the sensitivity analysis did not confirm this finding, underlying the importance of having high-level studies to investigate this issue. Moreover, the absolute score values did not differ also considering the minimal detectable change defined as 10.1 points for the Lysholm score when investigating meniscus injuries.45 A difference was instead shown in the thigh girth, favoring HBP, whereas a difference was found in the vertical hop test score, favoring IOP. Still, clinical meaningfulness of these differences is likely negligible. The overall overlapping benefit of IOP and HBP is particularly interesting considering the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic. The travel restrictions and social distancing measures implemented worldwide to contain the spread of the virus highlight the importance of reducing unnecessary face-to-face clinical consultations and treatments, as well as overall people exposure.46 Furthermore, implementing HBP should be seen with favor considering the postoperative driving limitations of patients living in rural areas with no convenient access to physical therapy (PT) facilities,24 and should be pursued and further developed to optimize patient management after AM.
The search for the optimal post-AM management has been under investigation for almost 40 years. In 1989, Jokl et al24 reported no differences between supervised outpatient rehabilitation and HBP across a range of subjective and objective outcome measures, and the HBP group even showed a tendency to perform better in all the strength, power, and endurance isokinetic assessments with a quicker return to daily activities, work, and sport compared with IOP. The author was contacted but the original data needed for inclusion of this study were no longer retrievable. Also, Birch et al47 compared IOP and HBP, reporting no difference in outcome measures. Their study was not included because none of the outcome measures aligned with those of the meta-analysis protocol. Even though these studies could not be included, altogether the literature underlines no overall benefits of IOP over HBP. In this regard, it is also worth mentioning that Han et al48 found no difference comparing the outpatient PT with HBP even following a considerably more invasive procedure such as total knee replacement. However, advantages of IOP on post-AM rehabilitation were still underlined by some studies,40,42 and a faster functional recovery could be relevant especially for competitive athletes. The 2 functional outcomes included in this meta-analysis were measured within a follow-up range from 28 to 50 days, which lines up with the return to sport following AM.49 In this light, the vertical hop test favoring IOP and suggesting a benefit in terms of recovery time deserve to be better analyzed. The retrieved weighted MD was of only 3.25 cm. Moreover, this test has no established reliability or measurement error as assessed by the minimal important change or smallest detectable change.50 Therefore, the actual clinical significance of the intergroup difference emerged in this meta-analysis should be considered critically for the average patient. Further studies with subclassification of participants would empower an Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) targeted to specific patient populations.
“Patients are often prescribed PT after arthroscopy in the belief that knee function will be regained more quickly,”47 but thus far the published literature offers heterogeneous findings. Regarding this subject, it is worth pointing out that the RCTs analyzed present heterogeneous study methodology; thus the analysis implied a simplification of a complex field, and some aspects of the post-AM management emerged that deserve critical consideration and deeper research to further clarify this topic. For instance, Di Paola51 investigated the effect of a protocol-driven HBP compared with traditional outpatient PT in participants following AM and receiving workers’ compensation. The HBP group was also given a written referral with a predetermined maximum number of approved PT sessions to attend if needed, likely representing a deviation from a truly HBP approach. Because of the retrospective study design and contamination of the HBP treatment, this study was excluded from the meta-analysis. However, the study found no difference in time to release to light and full duty at work, time to claim closure, or rate of impairment and permanent disability rate. Interestingly, the number of attended PT sessions resulted 40% lower in the HBP group showing the way for an effective post-AM management with an associated marked cost-reduction. The author concluded that “Providing more services does not necessarily ensure better results and may have either no effect or a negative effect on functional or financial outcomes.”51 This issue has already been alluded to by Forster and Frost23 who indicated that since no difference was found between IOP and HBP “the resources saved by discontinuing routine PT after AM could be diverted to the rehabilitation of conditions in which benefit might accrue.” Jokl et al24 also came to the same conclusion while additionally illustrating that IOP is up to 21 times more expensive than HBP, with an average cost of $850.00 for IOP compared with $40.00 for HBP (this study was published in 1989, thus the absolute numbers no longer relate with the current economy). Di Paola highlighted that an optimized HBP approach would include the addition of a monitoring system, whereby the participants receive indications on expected subjective and functional outcomes, and specific objective weekly goals, the failure of meeting which “alerted the clinicians to the potential need for modification to the HBP regimen.”51 Such an approach was suggested by Jokl et al24 over 30 years ago, who contested that not all meniscectomized patients perform equally following surgery. Periodical follow-ups can identify who is not adequately progressing and should switch to IOP, embodying an optimized management. As this study concluded, most of the post-AM management could be alleviated by prescribing a properly monitored HBP.
HBP showed to be a suitable option in musculoskeletal rehabilitation,52 but factors such as patients’ perspectives and previous experiences should not be overlooked since they are symbiotically tied to program compliance and adherence hence fostering better prognosis.53 Many post-AM patients can develop over-dependency on supervised PT owing to their lack of knowledge, confidence, and equipment. However, the equipment needed to implement HBP is usually minimal, and a detailed exercise protocol outlining the treatment philosophy and clearly related goals can enhance patient adherence.51 Yilmaz et al54 illustrated that home exercises taught by a physical therapist were more useful for patients than an exercise leaflet alone among a group of patients with knee osteoarthritis, highlighting how patients’ education and coaching are important aspects when prescribing HBPs. Two systematic reviews55,56 investigated factors associated with a higher adherence to HBP, which found high self-efficacy and motivation, internal locus of control, limited feeling of helplessness, social support, positive feedback from a physical therapist, supervision, time-convenience, cost-reduction, and recurring to an exercise diary. In addition, a qualitative study of Palazzo et al57 documented patients' expectations regarding adherence with new technologies applied to the delivery of HBP, underlining that regardless of the proposed tool, patients expected to learn its use through a supervised session and their home performance regularly checked by health care practitioners, thus asking for some level of monitoring associated with HBP.
HBPs can be optimized by considering these findings. To this regard, Hadley et al38 investigated HBP delivered through an internet-based exercise program with no human interaction.38 Patients could message questions obtaining written replies by physical therapists. The login frequency and time spent watching the exercises videos suggested high adherence. Similarly, Russell et al58 found internet-based rehabilitation to be as effective as IOP in patients following total knee replacement. This approach appears to be inherently capable of enhancing adherence by addressing some of the previously mentioned barriers to HBP,59 ensuring supervision from a clinician, and is time- and money-saving for both health care systems and patients compared with standard IOP.60 Internet-based rehabilitation shares a lot in common with tele-rehabilitation, which provides additional support and feedback through onscreen face-to-face human interaction and proved noninferior to IOP after hospital discharge even in patients following markedly more invasive knee surgical procedures.61 This approach was found to be similar to face-to-face PT in terms of pain, function, and quality of life, concurrently matching patients’ satisfaction,62 being cost-effective,63 and reducing traveling time, costs, and work absenteeism associated with in-person appointments.64
These findings add to the present meta-analysis, which was conceived to compare outcomes associated with HBP vs IOP following AM, offering a comprehensive and transparent snapshot of the available scientific literature on this topic. This meta-analysis was able to provide a valuable clinical indication showing the overall nonsuperiority of IOP vs HBP. These results, together with other findings of the available literature, suggest the benefit of HBP and the possibility to further optimize a more balanced, combined approach that might express the highest potential, such as a monitored HBP with IOP mainly for the patients not progressing as expected. Tele- and internet-based rehabilitation could represent an effective way to monitor HBP, improving treatment adherence and the results of patients after AM.
There are multiple limitations to this meta-analysis. The number of included studies was low. The number of studies per outcome that concurred to the pooled data for the meta-analysis was low due to the heterogeneity of the outcomes retrieved in the specific literature; although the Hartung-Knapp correction was applied to address this limitation and properly analyze the outcomes, more high-level trials are needed to confirm the study findings. Only one midterm outcome was recorded (patient-reported outcome) limiting the overall strength of the observations at this time point. The inclusion of only RCTs elevated the level of this meta-analysis, but their risk of bias was assessed from some concerns to high and the low to very low GRADE evidence profile represent a limitation.
The meta-analysis comprised the available RCTs in the scientific literature comparing HBP with IOP after AM. Overall, no intervention was found to be superior in terms of physical, functional, work-related, and patient-reported outcomes, both at short-term and midterm follow-ups. Thus, these findings suggest that HBP may be an effective management after AM in the general population.
Accepted for Publication: April 1, 2021.
Published: May 26, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11582
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Nutarelli S et al. JAMA Network Open.
Corresponding Author: Sebastiano Nutarelli, MS, Orthopaedic and Traumatology Unit, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, EOC, Via Tesserete 46, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland (sebastiano.nutarelli@eoc.ch).
Author Contributions: Mr Nutarelli and Dr Cuzzolin had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Nutarelli, Cuzzolin, Delcogliano, Candrian, Filardo.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Nutarelli, Delahunt, Cuzzolin, Filardo.
Drafting of the manuscript: Nutarelli, Cuzzolin.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: Nutarelli, Cuzzolin.
Obtained funding: Candrian.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Cuzzolin.
Supervision: Delahunt, Cuzzolin, Delcogliano, Candrian, Filardo.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Additional Contributions: The authors thank Elettra Pignotti, PhD, for support in the statistical analysis. She was compensated for her contribution.
Additional Information: The study was performed at the Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.
1.Jones
JC, Burks
R, Owens
BD, Sturdivant
RX, Svoboda
SJ, Cameron
KL. Incidence and risk factors associated with meniscal injuries among active-duty US military service members.
J Athl Train. 2012;47(1):67-73. doi:
10.4085/1062-6050-47.1.67PubMedGoogle Scholar 3.Mitchell
J, Graham
W, Best
TM,
et al. Epidemiology of meniscal injuries in US high school athletes between 2007 and 2013.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(3):715-722. doi:
10.1007/s00167-015-3814-2PubMedGoogle Scholar 4.Snoeker
BAM, Bakker
EWP, Kegel
CAT, Lucas
C. Risk factors for meniscal tears: a systematic review including meta-analysis.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(6):352-367. doi:
10.2519/jospt.2013.4295PubMedGoogle Scholar 9.Pengas
I, Nash
W, Assiotis
A, To
K, Khan
W, McNicholas
M. The effects of knee meniscectomy on the development of osteoarthritis in the patellofemoral joint 40 years following meniscectomy.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29(8):1705-1708. doi:
10.1007/s00590-019-02480-wPubMedGoogle Scholar 13.Papalia
R, Del Buono
A, Osti
L, Denaro
V, Maffulli
N. Meniscectomy as a risk factor for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.
Br Med Bull. 2011;99:89-106. doi:
10.1093/bmb/ldq043PubMedGoogle Scholar 15.Stein
T, Mehling
AP, Welsch
F, von Eisenhart-Rothe
R, Jäger
A. Long-term outcome after arthroscopic meniscal repair versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for traumatic meniscal tears.
Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(8):1542-1548. doi:
10.1177/0363546510364052PubMedGoogle Scholar 16.Toanen
C, Dhollander
A, Bulgheroni
P,
et al. Polyurethane meniscal scaffold for the treatment of partial meniscal deficiency: 5-year follow-up outcomes: a European multicentric study.
Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(6):1347-1355. doi:
10.1177/0363546520913528PubMedGoogle Scholar 18.Siemieniuk
RAC, Harris
IA, Agoritsas
T,
et al. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline.
BMJ. 2017;357:j1982. doi:
10.1136/bmj.j1982PubMedGoogle Scholar 19.Abrams
GD, Frank
RM, Gupta
AK, Harris
JD, McCormick
FM, Cole
BJ. Trends in meniscus repair and meniscectomy in the United States, 2005-2011.
Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(10):2333-2339. doi:
10.1177/0363546513495641PubMedGoogle Scholar 20.Garrett
WE
Jr, Swiontkowski
MF, Weinstein
JN,
et al. American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Practice of the Orthopaedic Surgeon: part-ii, certification examination case mix.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(3):660-667. doi:
10.2106/00004623-200603000-00027PubMedGoogle Scholar 21.Anetzberger
H, Birkenmaier
C, Lorenz
S. Meniscectomy: indications, procedure, outcomes, and rehabilitation.
Orthop Res Rev. 2013;6:1. doi:
10.2147/ORR.S54669Google Scholar 22.Lee
DY, Park
YJ, Kim
HJ,
et al. Arthroscopic meniscal surgery versus conservative management in patients aged 40 years and older: a meta-analysis.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138(12):1731-1739. doi:
10.1007/s00402-018-2991-0PubMedGoogle Scholar 25.van de Graaf
VA, van Dongen
JM, Willigenburg
NW,
et al; ESCAPE Research Group. How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? a trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study.
Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(9):538-545. doi:
10.1136/bjsports-2018-100065PubMedGoogle Scholar 27.Flaxman
S, Mishra
S, Gandy
A,
et al; Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe.
Nature. 2020;584(7820):257-261. doi:
10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7PubMedGoogle Scholar 28.Fong
MW, Gao
H, Wong
JY,
et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings-social distancing measures.
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(5):976-984. doi:
10.3201/eid2605.190995PubMedGoogle Scholar 30.Higgins
JPT, Green
S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol 4. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
31.Higgins
JPT, Altman
DG, Gøtzsche
PC,
et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
BMJ. 2011;343(7829):d5928. doi:
10.1136/bmj.d5928PubMedGoogle Scholar 33.Borenstein
M, Hedges
LV, Higgins
JP, Rothstein
HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis.
Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97-111. doi:
10.1002/jrsm.12PubMedGoogle Scholar 34.Jackson
D, Law
M, Rücker
G, Schwarzer
G. The Hartung-Knapp modification for random-effects meta-analysis: a useful refinement but are there any residual concerns?
Stat Med. 2017;36(25):3923-3934. doi:
10.1002/sim.7411PubMedGoogle Scholar 35.Wan
X, Wang
W, Liu
J, Tong
T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):135. doi:
10.1186/1471-2288-14-135PubMedGoogle Scholar 36.Akkaya
N, Ardic
F, Ozgen
M, Akkaya
S, Sahin
F, Kilic
A. Efficacy of electromyographic biofeedback and electrical stimulation following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(3):224-236. doi:
10.1177/0269215511419382PubMedGoogle Scholar 37.Goodwin
PC, Morrissey
MC, Omar
RZ, Brown
M, Southall
K, McAuliffe
TB. Effectiveness of supervised physical therapy in the early period after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy.
Phys Ther. 2003;83(6):520-535. doi:
10.1093/ptj/83.6.520PubMedGoogle Scholar 38.Hadley
C, McGrath
M, Prodoehl
JP,
et al Comparison of traditional physical therapy to internet-based physical therapy after knee arthroscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing patient outcomes and satisfaction.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(7 suppl5):2325967119S0034. doi:
10.1177/2325967119s00344Google Scholar 39.Kelln
BM, Ingersoll
CD, Saliba
S, Miller
MD, Hertel
J. Effect of early active range of motion rehabilitation on outcome measures after partial meniscectomy.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(6):607-616. doi:
10.1007/s00167-009-0723-2PubMedGoogle Scholar 40.Kirnap
M, Calis
M, Turgut
AO, Halici
M, Tuncel
M. The efficacy of EMG-biofeedback training on quadriceps muscle strength in patients after arthroscopic meniscectomy.
N Z Med J. 2005;118(1224):U1704.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 41.Moffet
H, Richards
CL, Malouin
F, Bravo
G, Paradis
G. Early and intensive physiotherapy accelerates recovery postarthroscopic meniscectomy: results of a randomized controlled study.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(4):415-426. doi:
10.1016/0003-9993(94)90165-1PubMedGoogle Scholar 42.Vervest
AMJS, Maurer
CAJ, Schambergen
TGR, de Bie
RA, Bulstra
SK. Effectiveness of physiotherapy after meniscectomy.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7(6):360-364. doi:
10.1007/s001670050181PubMedGoogle Scholar 44.McMaster University; Evidence Prime Inc. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro guideline development tool [software]. Accessed April 21, 2021.
https://gradepro.org.
45.Briggs
KK, Kocher
MS, Rodkey
WG, Steadman
JR. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee score and Tegner activity scale for patients with meniscal injury of the knee.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(4):698-705. doi:
10.2106/JBJS.E.00339PubMedGoogle Scholar 47.Birch
NC, Sly
C, Brooks
S, Powles
DP. Anti-inflammatory drug therapy after arthroscopy of the knee. A prospective, randomised, controlled trial of diclofenac or physiotherapy.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(4):650-652. doi:
10.1302/0301-620X.75B4.8331125PubMedGoogle Scholar 48.Han
ASY, Nairn
L, Harmer
AR,
et al. Early rehabilitation after total knee replacement surgery: a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized clinical trial comparing a home exercise program with usual outpatient care.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015;67(2):196-202. doi:
10.1002/acr.22457PubMedGoogle Scholar 49.Frizziero
A, Ferrari
R, Giannotti
E, Ferroni
C, Poli
P, Masiero
S. The meniscus tear. State of the art of rehabilitation protocols related to surgical procedures.
Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2013;2(4):295-301.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 50.Hegedus
EJ, McDonough
S, Bleakley
C, Cook
CE, Baxter
GD. Clinician-friendly lower extremity physical performance measures in athletes: a systematic review of measurement properties and correlation with injury, part 1. The tests for knee function including the hop tests.
Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(10):642-648. doi:
10.1136/bjsports-2014-094094PubMedGoogle Scholar 51.Di Paola
J. Disability, impairment, and physical therapy utilization after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in patients receiving workers’ compensation.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(6):523-530. doi:
10.2106/JBJS.K.00076PubMedGoogle Scholar 54.Yilmaz
M, Sahin
M, Algun
ZC. Comparison of effectiveness of the home exercise program and the home exercise program taught by physiotherapist in knee osteoarthritis.
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2019;32(1):161-169. doi:
10.3233/BMR-181234PubMedGoogle Scholar 56.Beinart
NA, Goodchild
CE, Weinman
JA, Ayis
S, Godfrey
EL. Individual and intervention-related factors associated with adherence to home exercise in chronic low back pain: a systematic review.
Spine J. 2013;13(12):1940-1950. doi:
10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.027PubMedGoogle Scholar 57.Palazzo
C, Klinger
E, Dorner
V,
et al. Barriers to home-based exercise program adherence with chronic low back pain: patient expectations regarding new technologies.
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;59(2):107-113. doi:
10.1016/j.rehab.2016.01.009PubMedGoogle Scholar 58.Russell
TG, Buttrum
P, Wootton
R, Jull
GA. Internet-based outpatient telerehabilitation for patients following total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(2):113-120. doi:
10.2106/JBJS.I.01375PubMedGoogle Scholar 59.Bennell
KL, Marshall
CJ, Dobson
F, Kasza
J, Lonsdale
C, Hinman
RS. Does a web-based exercise programming system improve home exercise adherence for people with musculoskeletal conditions?: a randomized controlled trial.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(10):850-858. doi:
10.1097/PHM.0000000000001204PubMedGoogle Scholar 60.Peretti
A, Amenta
F, Tayebati
SK, Nittari
G, Mahdi
SS. Telerehabilitation: review of the state-of-the-art and areas of application.
JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;4(2):e7. doi:
10.2196/rehab.7511PubMedGoogle Scholar 61.Moffet
H, Tousignant
M, Nadeau
S,
et al. In-home telerehabilitation compared with face-to-face rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(14):1129-1141. doi:
10.2106/JBJS.N.01066PubMedGoogle Scholar 62.Grona
SL, Bath
B, Busch
A, Rotter
T, Trask
C, Harrison
E. Use of videoconferencing for physical therapy in people with musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review.
J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(5):341-355. doi:
10.1177/1357633X17700781PubMedGoogle Scholar 64.Cottrell
MA, Hill
AJ, O’Leary
SP, Raymer
ME, Russell
TG. Patients are willing to use telehealth for the multidisciplinary management of chronic musculoskeletal conditions: a cross-sectional survey.
J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(7):445-452. doi:
10.1177/1357633X17706605PubMedGoogle Scholar