Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 12, pp 3399–3405 | Cite as

Sex Differences in Factors Influencing Recovery from Arthroscopic Knee Surgery

  • Patricia H. Rosenberger
  • Firdaus S. Dhabhar
  • Elissa Epel
  • Peter Jokl
  • Jeannette R. Ickovics
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Many factors affect recovery from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, including patient sex. However, sex differences in time to maximal recovery of knee function and factors influencing differential rates of recovery are unknown.

Questions/purposes

We determined (1) preoperative sex differences, (2) sex differences in rate and extent of recovery through 1 year postoperatively, and (3) clinical and fitness variables that could explain potential sex differences in recovery from partial meniscectomy.

Patients and Methods

The study sample consisted of 180 patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Sex, age, body mass index, history of prior injury, length of time between knee injury/impairment and surgical evaluation, weekly exercise frequency, and self-reported fitness were assessed preoperatively, and extent of osteoarthritis was recorded postoperatively. We used the Tegner-Lysholm scale to assess knee function preoperatively and postoperatively at Weeks 1, 3, 8, 16, 24, and 48 followups.

Results

Females had worse knee function and delayed maximal recovery, requiring 1 year, compared with males, who required only 4 months. History of prior knee injury and lower self-reported fitness were associated with slower recovery in females but not in males. Osteoarthritis was associated with slower recovery but not related to sex. Body mass index, length of time between injury/impairment and surgical evaluation, and weekly exercise frequency did not influence rate of recovery.

Conclusions

Females have delayed recovery after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Prior knee injury and self-reported low fitness are associated with delayed recovery for females but not for males.

Level of Evidence

Level I, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Cameron ML, Briggs KK, Steadman JR. Reproducibility and reliability of the Outerbridge classification for grading chondral lesions of the knee arthroscopically. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31:83–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daniel DM. Selecting patients for ACL surgery. In: Jackson DW, Arnoczky SP, Woo S, Frank C, Simon T, eds. The Anterior Cruciate Ligament: Current and Future Concepts. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donner A, Klar N. Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of community intervention trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:435–439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fabricant PD, Rosenberger PH, Jokl P, Ickovics J. Surgical outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:647–653.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hedeker D, Gibbons RD, Waternaux C. Sample size estimation for longitudinal designs with attrition: comparing time-related contrasts between two groups. J Educ Behav Stat. 1999;24:70–93.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoser C, Fink C, Brown C, Reichkendler M, Hackl W, Bartlett J. Long-term results of arthroscopic partial lateral meniscectomy in knees without associated damage. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:513–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson DL, Fu FH. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: why do failures occur? Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:391–406.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kartus JT, Russell VJ, Salmon LJ, Magnusson LC, Brandsson S, Pehrsson NG, Pinczewski LA. Concomitant partial meniscectomy worsens outcome after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002;73:179–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katz JN, Wright EA, Guadagnoli E, Liang MH, Karlson EW, Cleary PD. Differences between men and females undergoing major orthopedic surgery for degenerative arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37:687–694.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marx RG, Jones EC, Allen AA, Altchek DW, O’Brien SJ, Rodeo SA, Williams RJ, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1459–1469.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McConville OR, Kipnis JM, Richmond JC, Rocket SE, Michaud MJ. The effect of meniscal status on knee stability and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 1993;9:431–439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murray D. Design and Analysis of Group-randomized Trials. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Conner MI. Sex differences in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(suppl 1):S22–S25.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenberger PH, Ickovics JR, Epel E, Nadler E, Jokl P, Fulkerson JP, Tillie JM, Dhabhar FS. Surgical stress induced immune cell redistribution profiles predict short-term and long-term postsurgical recovery: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2783–2794.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenberger PH, Ickovics JR, Epel ES, D’Entremont D, Jokl P. Physical recovery in arthroscopic knee surgery: unique contributions of coping behaviors to clinical outcomes and stress reactivity. Psychol Health. 2004;19:307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenberger PH, Jokl P, Ickovics JR. Psychosocial factors and surgical outcome: an evidence-based literature review. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14:397–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schimmer RC, Brulhart KB, Duff C, Glinz W. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: a 12-year follow-up and two-step evaluation of the long-term course. Arthroscopy. 1998;14:136–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singh JA, Gabriel S, Lewallen D. The impact of gender, age, and preoperative pain severity on pain after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2717–2723.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Swenson TM, Harner CD. Knee ligament and meniscal injuries: current concepts. Orthop Clin North Am. 1995;26:529–546.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:43–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tosi LL, Boyan BD, Boskey AL. Does sex matter in musculoskeletal health? A workshop report. Orthop Clin North Am. 2006;37:523–529.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weitzel PP, Richmond JC. Critical evaluation of different scoring systems of the knee. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2002;10;183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia H. Rosenberger
    • 1
    • 2
  • Firdaus S. Dhabhar
    • 3
  • Elissa Epel
    • 4
  • Peter Jokl
    • 5
  • Jeannette R. Ickovics
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.VA Connecticut Healthcare SystemWest HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and InfectionStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  5. 5.Department of OrthopaedicsYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  6. 6.Departments of Epidemiology and Public Health and PsychologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations