1.Clinical Impact of Meniscal Scaffold Implantation in Patients with Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review
Joo Hyung HAN ; Min JUNG ; Kwangho CHUNG ; Se-Han JUNG ; Hyunjun LEE ; Chong-Hyuk CHOI ; Sung-Hwan KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):112-122
Background:
Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds.
Methods:
A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included.
Results:
A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4.
Conclusions
There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.
2.Clinical Impact of Meniscal Scaffold Implantation in Patients with Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review
Joo Hyung HAN ; Min JUNG ; Kwangho CHUNG ; Se-Han JUNG ; Hyunjun LEE ; Chong-Hyuk CHOI ; Sung-Hwan KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):112-122
Background:
Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds.
Methods:
A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included.
Results:
A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4.
Conclusions
There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.
3.Clinical Impact of Meniscal Scaffold Implantation in Patients with Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review
Joo Hyung HAN ; Min JUNG ; Kwangho CHUNG ; Se-Han JUNG ; Hyunjun LEE ; Chong-Hyuk CHOI ; Sung-Hwan KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):112-122
Background:
Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds.
Methods:
A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included.
Results:
A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4.
Conclusions
There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.
4.Clinical Impact of Meniscal Scaffold Implantation in Patients with Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review
Joo Hyung HAN ; Min JUNG ; Kwangho CHUNG ; Se-Han JUNG ; Hyunjun LEE ; Chong-Hyuk CHOI ; Sung-Hwan KIM
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2025;17(1):112-122
Background:
Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds.
Methods:
A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included.
Results:
A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4.
Conclusions
There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.
8.The epidemiology of male lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: Results of 20 years of Korean community care and surveys
Seonguk JEH ; Minsung CHOI ; Changseok KANG ; Daehyun KIM ; Jaehwi CHOI ; Seemin CHOI ; Jeongseok HWA ; Chunwoo LEE ; Sungchul KAM ; Seongwon KWON ; Saecheol KIM ; Jaeman SONG ; Dongdeuk KWON ; Tae Gyun KWON ; Kwangho KIM ; Younggon KIM ; Taehyung KIM ; Yong Gil NA ; Dong Soo PARK ; Hyun Jun PARK ; Rakhee SEONG ; Sangguk YANG ; Seongtae YOON ; Jinhan YUN ; Gyeongseop LEE ; Donghyun LEE ; Seonju LEE ; Byungyul JEON ; Hyunchul JUNG ; Seongjun HONG ; Nakkyu CHOI ; Yunsoo LEE ; Jaeseog HYUN
Investigative and Clinical Urology 2024;65(1):69-76
Purpose:
To investigate the prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia in a Korean population.
Materials and Methods:
The Korean Prostate & Voiding Health Association provided free prostate-related community health care and conducted surveys in all regions of Korea from 2001 to 2022 with the cooperation of local government public health centers. A total of 72,068 males older than 50 were surveyed and analyzed. History taking, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), transrectal ultrasonography, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, uroflowmetry, and urine volume testing were performed.
Results:
The mean prostate volumes in males in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s or above were 24.7 g, 27.7 g, 31 g, and 33.7 g, respectively. The proportion of males with high PSA greater than 3 ng/mL was 3.8% among males in their 50s, 7.7% among males in their 60s, 13.1% among males in their 70s, and 17.9% among males 80 years of age or older. The mean IPSS total scores in males in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s or above were 10.7, 12.7, 14.5, and 16, respectively. Severe symptoms were reported by 27.3% of males, whereas 51.7% reported moderate symptoms. The mean Qmax in males in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s or above were 20 mL/s, 17.4 mL/s, 15.4 mL/s, and 13.8 mL/s, respectively.
Conclusions
In this population-based study, mean prostate volume, IPSS, PSA, and Qmax were 30.6±15.1 g, 14.8±8.2, 1.9±4.7 ng/mL, and 15.6±6.5 mL/s, respectively. Aging was significantly associated with increased prostate volume, PSA levels, and IPSS scores, and with decreased Qmax and urine volume.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail