Osteoarthritis Development Following Meniscectomy vs. Meniscal Repair for Posterior Medial Meniscus Injuries: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review aims to evaluate critically and synthesize the existing literature on the outcomes of meniscectomy versus meniscal repair for posterior medial meniscus injuries, with a focus on osteoarthritis (OA) development. We sought to assess the incidence of OA following both treatment modalities, compare functional outcomes post-treatment, and identify factors influencing treatment choice, providing evidence-based recommendations for clinical decision-making. A comprehensive search strategy was employed across PubMed, Scopus, and Embase up until December 2023, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes included OA development, functional knee outcomes, and quality of life measures. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 298 patients. The systematic review revealed a significant association between meniscal repair and decreased progression of OA compared to meniscectomy. Meniscectomy patients demonstrated a 51.42% progression rate towards OA, significantly higher than the 21.28% observed in meniscal repair patients. Functional outcomes, as measured by the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, were notably better in the repair group, with average scores of 74.68 (IKDC) and 83.78 (Lysholm) compared to 67.55 (IKDC) and 74.56 (Lysholm) in the meniscectomy group. Furthermore, the rate of complete healing in the repair group was reported at 71.4%, as one study reported, indicating a favorable prognosis for meniscal preservation. However, these pooled data should be interpreted with consideration to the heterogeneity of the analyzed studies. Meniscal repair for posterior medial meniscus injuries is superior to meniscectomy in preventing OA development and achieving better functional outcomes and quality of life post-treatment. These findings strongly suggest the adoption of meniscal repair as the preferred treatment modality for such injuries, emphasizing the need for a paradigm shift in clinical practice towards preserving meniscal integrity to optimize patient outcomes.

Total meniscus replacement with a 3D printing of network hydrogel composite scaffold in a rabbit model.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of a novel total meniscal implant in promoting meniscal regeneration and protecting articular cartilage in a rabbit model for 3 and 6 months. METHODS: Thirty-six New Zealand rabbits were selected and divided into poly(ɛ-caprolactone) (PG-Pg) scaffold group, meniscectomy group and sham group. In this study, it was investigated whether PG-Pg scaffold can prevent articular cartilage degeneration and promote tissue degeneration, and its mechanical properties at 3 and 6 months after surgery were also explored. RESULT: The degree of articular cartilage degeneration was significantly lower in the PG-Pg scaffold group than in the meniscectomy group. The number of chondrocytes increased in the PG-Pg scaffold at 3 and 6 months, while a gradual increase in the mechanical properties of the PG-Pg stent was observed from 6 months. CONCLUSION: The PG-Pg scaffold slows down the degeneration of articular cartilage, promotes tissue regeneration and improves biomechanical properties after meniscectomy. This novel meniscus scaffold holds promise for enhancing surgical strategies and delivering superior long-term results for individuals with severe meniscus tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair and Meniscectomy for Adult Discoid Lateral Meniscus Results in Progression to Valgus Alignment and Lateral Compartment Degeneration Compared With Nonoperative Treatment and Nondiscoid Lateral Meniscus.

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of the arthroscopic meniscal procedure in adult discoid lateral meniscus (DLM) according to the age and meniscal-preserving by making comparisons with the nondiscoid lateral meniscus (N-DLM). METHODS: From March 2014 to October 2020, a comparative analysis was performed in adults with DLM who underwent arthroscopic meniscal procedures (operative DLM: 134 knees), nonoperative treatment (nonoperative DLM: 56 knees), and adult N-DLM who underwent arthroscopic meniscal procedures (operative N-DLM: 64 knees). These patients were between 20 and 65 years old and completed a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients with DLM who underwent arthroscopic procedure were divided into subgroups according to age and extent of the meniscal-preserving. The following parameters were assessed and compared between the groups: (1) coronal limb alignment, (2) osteoarthritis grade, and (3) clinical outcomes and the minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: The coronal limb alignment was significantly changed to valgus in the order of operative DLM, N-DLM, and nonoperative DLM (Δ mechanical hip-knee-ankle angle: 3.23 ± 1.85 vs 1.35 ± 1.03° vs -0.57 ± 1.88°; P < .05). Operative DLM showed most prominent osteoarthritic change in the lateral compartment, followed by the N-DLM and nonoperative DLM groups (40.3% vs 17.2% vs 5.3%; P < .05). These changes in operative DLM were more prominent in older adults who underwent meniscal-sacrificing procedures and resulted in less-satisfactory clinical outcomes (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic surgery for adult DLM resulted in progression to valgus alignment and lateral compartment degeneration compared with nonoperative treatment and arthroscopic surgery of the adult N-DLM. Old ager and having a meniscal-sacrificing procedure showed more rapid radiographic changes and lower clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparison study.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for the degenerative meniscus tear: a comparison of patients included in RCTs and prospective cohort studies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Concerns exist regarding the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) to treat degenerative meniscus tears. It has been suggested that study populations are not representative of subjects selected for surgery in daily clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to compare patients included in trials and prospective cohort studies that received APM for a degenerative meniscus tear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual participant data from 4 RCTs and 2 cohort studies undergoing APM were collected. 1,970 patients were analyzed: 605 patients included in RCTs and 1,365 included in the cohorts. We compared patient and disease characteristics, knee pain, overall knee function, and health-related quality of life at baseline between the RCT and cohort groups using standardized differences, ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates, and graphical methods such as quantile-quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots. RESULTS: Differences between RCT and the cohort were observed primarily in age (younger patients in the cohort; standardized difference: 0.32) and disease severity, with the RCT group having more severe symptoms (standardized difference: 0.38). While knee pain, overall knee function, and quality of life generally showed minimal differences between the 2 groups, it is noteworthy that the largest observed difference was in knee pain, where the cohort group scored 7 points worse (95% confidence interval 5-9, standardized difference: 0.29). CONCLUSION: Patients in RCTs were largely representative of those in cohort studies regarding baseline scores, though variations in age and disease severity were observed. Younger patients with less severe osteoarthritis were more common in the cohort; however, trial participants still appear to be broadly representative of the target population.

[Research progress of knee meniscal repair techniques].

Objective: To review the research progress of meniscus repair in recent years, in order to provide help for the clinical decision-making of meniscus injury treatment. Methods: The domestic and foreign literature related to meniscal repair in recent years was extensively reviewed to summarize the reasons for the prevalence of meniscal repair, surgical indications, various repair methods and long-term effectiveness, the need to deal with mechanical structural abnormalities, biological enhancement repair technology, rehabilitation treatment, and so on. Results: In order to delay the occurrence of osteoarthritis, the best treatment of meniscus has undergone an important change from partial meniscectomy to meniscal repair, and the indications for meniscal repair have been expanding. The mid- and long-term effectiveness of different meniscal repair methods are ideal. During meniscus repair, the abnormality of lower limb force line and meniscus protrusion should be corrected at the same time. There are controversies about the biological enhancement technology to promote meniscus healing and rehabilitation programs, which need further study. Conclusion: Meniscal repair can restore the normal mechanical conduction of lower limbs and reduce the incidence of traumatic osteoarthritis, but the poor blood supply and healing ability of meniscal tissue bring difficulties to meniscal repair. Further development of new biological enhanced repair technology and individualized rehabilitation program and verification of its effectiveness will be an important research direction.

No differences in knee joint loading between individuals who had a medial or lateral meniscectomy: An ancillary study.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is a frequently undertaken procedure for traumatic meniscal injuries. The location of knee joint degeneration and long-term prognosis differs between knees who have had a medial or lateral meniscectomy. However, there is no evidence comparing knee loading following a medial or lateral meniscectomy during sporting tasks. This study compared knee loading during walking and running between individuals who either had a medial or lateral meniscectomy. METHODS: Knee kinematic and kinetic data were collected during walking and running in individuals three to twelve months post-surgery. Participants were grouped according to the location of surgery (medial, n = 12, and lateral, n = 16). An independent t-test compared knee biomechanics between the groups and Hedge's g effects sizes were also conducted. RESULTS: External knee adduction and knee flexion moments were similar between groups for walking and running with negligible to small effect sizes (effect size, 0.08-0.30). Kinematic (effect size, 0.03-0.22) and spatiotemporal (effect size, 0.02-0.59) outcomes were also similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of differences in surrogate knee loading variables between medial and lateral meniscectomy groups was unexpected. These findings suggest that combining groups in the short-term period following surgery is applicable. However, the data presented in this study cannot explain the differences in long-term prognosis between medial and lateral meniscectomies.

The Relationship Between the Timing of Knee Osteoarthritis Diagnoses and Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) for meniscus tears in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Some insurance payers will not authorize APM in patients with knee OA. The purpose of this study was to assess the timing of knee OA diagnoses in patients undergoing APM. METHODS: A large commercial national claims data set containing deidentified information from October 2016 to December 2020 was used to identify patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Data were analyzed to determine whether patients in this group had a diagnosis of knee OA within 12 months before surgery and for the presence of a new diagnosis of knee OA at 3, 6, and 12 months after APM. RESULTS: Five lakhs thousand nine hundred twenty-two patients with a mean age of 54.0 ± 8.52 years, with the majority female (52.0%), were included. A total of 197,871 patients underwent APM without a diagnosis of knee OA at the time of the procedure. Of these patients, 109,427 (55.3%) had a previous diagnosis of knee OA within 12 months preceding surgery, and 24,536 (12.4%), 15,596 (7.9%), and 13,301 (6.7%) patients were diagnosed with knee OA at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite evidence against APM in patients with knee OA, more than half of the patients (55.3%) had a previous diagnosis of OA within 12 months of surgery and 27.0% received a new diagnosis of knee OA within one year of surgery. A notable number of patients had a diagnosis of knee OA either before or shortly after APM.

Effect of the volume of resected discoid lateral meniscus on the contact stress of the tibiofemoral joint: A finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: Partial meniscectomy is commonly performed for symptomatic patients with discoid lateral meniscus (DLM) if conservative treatment fails. However, the development of knee osteoarthritis and osteochondral lesion are detrimental postoperative complications. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the volume of resected DLM on the contact stress of the tibiofemoral joint using a finite element analysis. METHODS: Subject-specific finite-element models of the knee joint of a patient with DLM were developed from computed tomographic and magnetic resonance images. To evaluate the effect of partial meniscectomy on the contact stress in the lateral tibiofemoral joint, six knee models were created in the study (the native DLM, and five partially meniscectomized DLMs (according to the preserved width of the meniscus: 12 mm, 10 mm, 8 mm, 6 mm, and 4 mm)). RESULTS: As the volume of resected DLM increased, higher contact stress was applied to the lateral tibiofemoral joint. Greater contact stress was applied to the preserved lateral meniscus than to the native DLM. CONCLUSIONS: From a biomechanical viewpoint, the native DLM was the most protective against lateral tibiofemoral contact stress in comparison to partially meniscectomized DLMs.

Strength-Based Rehabilitation on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Postpartial Meniscectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to determine the effect of strength-based rehabilitation programs on patients who underwent partial meniscectomy procedures. DESIGN: Three databases MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase were searched from inception to May 9, 2022. Data on functional outcomes such as quadriceps and hamstring strengths, as well as patient-reported outcomes such as Knee Osteoarthritis and Outcome Score and visual analog scale were recorded. RESULTS: A total of nine studies comprising 417 patients were included in this review. There were no significant differences in quadriceps or hamstring strength measures between preinterventation and postintervention for both groups. Knee Osteoarthritis and Outcome Scores significantly increased from preintervention and postintervention in both control and exercise groups. Visual analog scale scores changed from 5.0 to 1.4 cm in the exercise arm and 3.1 to 1.9 cm in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: Strength-based exercise programs for patients postpartial meniscectomy did not result in significantly different improvements in quadriceps or hamstring strength compared with control programs. However, strength-based exercise programs resulted in significantly higher Knee Osteoarthritis and Outcome Scores and a greater decrease in visual analog scale scores. Further studies, specifically well-designed systematic randomized controlled trials, are necessary to elucidate the specifics behind what type of exercises to use in addition to load progression and frequency of training.

The value of reducing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in the treatment of degenerative meniscus tears: a budget impact analysis.

AIMS: Numerous studies have shown that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is not (cost-) effective in patients with symptoms attributed to a degenerative meniscus tear. We aimed to assess the budget impact of reducing APM in routine clinical practice in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient-level state transition model was developed to simulate patients recently diagnosed with a degenerative meniscus tear. Three strategies were compared: "current guideline" (i.e., postpone surgery to at least 3 months after diagnosis), "APM at any time" (i.e., APM available directly after diagnosis), and "nonsurgical" (i.e., APM no longer performed). Total societal costs over 5 years were calculated to determine the budget impact. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty. RESULTS: The average cost per patient over 5 years were EUR 5,077, EUR 4,577, and EUR 4,218, for the "APM at any time," "current guideline," and "nonsurgical" strategy, respectively. Removing APM from the treatment mix (i.e., 30,000 patients per year) in the Netherlands, resulted in a reduction in health care expenditures of EUR 54 million (95 percent confidence interval [CI] EUR 38 million-EUR 70 million) compared to the "current guideline strategy" and EUR 129 million (95 percent CI EUR 102 million-EUR 156 million) compared to the "APM at any time" strategy. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty did not alter our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial costs can be saved when APM is no longer performed to treat symptoms attributed to degenerative meniscus tears in the Netherlands. It is therefore recommended to further reduce the use of APM to treat degenerative meniscus tears.

Health-economic evaluation of meniscus tear treatments: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the overall evidence of published health-economic evaluation studies on meniscus tear treatment. METHODS: Our systematic review focuses on health-economic evaluation studies of meniscus tear treatment interventions found in PubMed and Embase databases. A qualitative, descriptive approach was used to analyze the studies' results and systematically report them following PRISMA guidelines. The health-economic evaluation method for each included study was categorized following one of the four approaches: partial economic evaluation (PEE), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Comparisons of input variables and outcomes were made, if applicable. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included; of these, six studies performed PEE, seven studies CUA, two studies CEA, and one study combined CBA, CUA, and CEA. The following economic comparisons were analyzed and showed the respective comparative outcomes: (1) meniscus repair was more cost-effective than arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (meniscectomy) for reparable meniscus tear; (2) non-operative treatment or physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy for degenerative meniscus tear; (3) physical therapy with delayed meniscectomy was more cost-effective than early meniscectomy for meniscus tear with knee osteoarthritis; (4) meniscectomy without physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy with physical therapy; (5) meniscectomy was more cost-effective than either meniscus allograft transplantation or meniscus scaffold procedure; (6) the conventional arthroscopic instrument cost was lower than laser-assisted arthroscopy in meniscectomy procedures. CONCLUSION: Results from this review suggest that meniscus repair is the most cost-effective intervention for reparable meniscus tears. Physical therapy followed by delayed meniscectomy is the most cost-effective intervention for degenerative meniscus tears. Meniscus scaffold should be avoided, especially when implemented on a large scale. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of level IV studies.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy vs non-surgical or sham treatment in patients with MRI-confirmed degenerative meniscus tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis with individual participant data from 605 randomised patients.

OBJECTIVE: To identify subgroups of patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed degenerative meniscus tears who may benefit from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in comparison with non-surgical or sham treatment. METHODS: Individual participant data (IPD) from four RCTs were pooled (605 patients, mean age: 55 (SD: 7.5), 52.4% female) as to investigate the effectiveness of APM in patients with MRI-confirmed degenerative meniscus tears compared to non-surgical or sham treatment. Primary outcomes were knee pain, overall knee function, and health-related quality of life, at 24 months follow-up (0-100). The IPD were analysed in a one- and two-stage meta-analyses. Identification of potential subgroups was performed by testing interaction effects of predefined patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender, mechanical symptoms) and APM for each outcome. Additionally, generalized linear mixed-model trees were used for subgroup detection. RESULTS: The APM group showed a small improvement over the non-surgical or sham group on knee pain at 24 months follow-up (2.5 points (95% CI: 0.8-4.2) and 2.2 points (95% CI: 0.9-3.6), one- and two-stage analysis, respectively). Overall knee function and health-related quality of life did not differ between the two groups. Across all outcomes, no relevant subgroup of patients who benefitted from APM was detected. The generalized linear mixed-model trees did also not identify a subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: No relevant subgroup of patients was identified that benefitted from APM compared to non-surgical or sham treatment. Since we were not able to identify any subgroup that benefitted from APM, we recommend a restrained policy regarding meniscectomy in patients with degenerative meniscus tears.

Meniscal allograft transplantation in discoid meniscus patients achieves good clinical outcomes and superior chondroprotection compared to meniscectomy in the long term.

PURPOSE: To compare the long-term clinical and radiological results of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) for discoid lateral meniscus (DLM) patients with MAT for non-discoid lateral meniscus patients and meniscectomy (ME) for DLM patients and, thus, to determine whether DLM patients are suitable candidates for MAT. METHODS: Eight MAT cases in DLM patients were identified (discoid MAT group), six MAT cases in non-discoid lateral meniscus patients (non-discoid MAT group) and ten total meniscectomy cases in DLM patients (discoid ME group) were matched as controls. Subjective evaluations, postoperative radiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were conducted at 5 years and 10-14 years, respectively. Joint degeneration was evaluated by the Kellgren-Lawrance (KL) grade and joint space width (JSW). MRI with T2 mapping sequences was used to quantitatively evaluate degeneration of the joint cartilage and shrinkage of the allografts. Student's t test was used to compare quantitative variables and the Mann‒Whitney U test was used to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: There was no difference in Lysholm, IKDC, Tegner or VAS scores amongst the discoid MAT, non-discoid MAT and discoid ME groups at the final follow-up. No revision surgery was performed in any MAT patient. The JSW narrowing in the discoid MAT group was better than that in the discoid ME group (0.8 ± 0.4 mm vs. 2.1 ± 1.3 mm, p = 0.012) and worse than that in the non-discoid MAT group (0.1 ± 0.1 mm, p = 0.003). The KL progression of the discoid MAT group was less than that of the discoid ME group (1.3 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9, p = 0.034). The discoid ME group had worse cartilage lesion progression than the discoid MAT and non-discoid MAT groups. The allograft width of the DLM patients shrank more than that of the non-discoid patients at the meniscus midbody (3.6 ± 0.9 mm vs. 6.2 ± 1.9 mm, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Compared to meniscectomy, MAT achieved similar long-term symptom relief and superior chondroprotection in discoid meniscus patients. Despite more graft shrinkage, the outcomes of MAT in discoid meniscus patients were comparable to those in non-discoid meniscus patients. Therefore, DLM patients may be suitable candidates for MAT procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

No evidence in support of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in adults with degenerative and nonobstructive meniscal symptoms: a level I evidence-based systematic review.

PURPOSE: It is unclear whether the results of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) are comparable to a structured physical therapy (PT). This systematic review investigated efficacy of APM in the management of symptomatic meniscal damages in middle aged patients. Current available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared APM performed in isolation or combined with physical therapy versus sham arthroscopy or isolated physical therapy were considered in the present systematic review. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. All the level I RCTs which investigated the efficacy of AMP were accessed. Studies which included elderlies with severe OA were not eligible, nor were those in which APM was combined with other surgical intervention or in patients with unstable knee or with ligaments insufficiency. The risk of bias was assessed using the software Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). To rate the quality of evidence of collected outcomes, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used. RESULTS: Data from 17 studies (2037 patients) were collected. 48.5% (988 of 2037 patients) were women. The mean age of the patients was 52.7 ± 3.9 years, the mean BMI 27.0 ± 1.3 kg/m2. The current evidence suggests no difference in functional PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), clinical PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), pain (quality of the evidence: high), quality of life (quality of the evidence: high), physical performance measures (quality of the evidence: moderate), and OA progression (quality of the evidence: moderate). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of APM in adults with degenerative and nonobstructive meniscal symptoms are limited. The current evidence reports similarity in the outcome between APM and PT. Further long-term RCTs are required to investigate whether APM and PT produce comparable results using validated and reliable PROMs. Moreover, future RCTs should investigate whether patients who might benefit from APM exist, clarifying proper indications and outcomes. High quality investigations are strongly required to establish the optimal PT regimes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Comparative Efficacy of Root Repair versus Partial Meniscectomy and Observation for Patients with Meniscus Root Tears.

The purpose of this study was to (1) compare the efficacy of root repair versus partial meniscectomy and observation for patients with meniscus root tears; (2) compare osteoarthritis (OA) progression and functional outcomes in patients with isolated repair and with adjuvant surgery; and (3) evaluate OA progression and functional outcomes after pullout repair or all-inside repair of meniscus root tears. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library up to September 1, 2020, to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy of root repair versus partial meniscectomy and observation in patients with meniscus root tears. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. A total of nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, with 485 patients comprising 238 in the root repair group, 113 in the partial meniscectomy group, and 134 in the observation group. The mean age of the patients ranged from 46.1 to 64.8 years. Compared with partial meniscectomy, root repair was associated with significantly lower postoperative Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade (mean difference [MD]: -0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.00 to -0.23) and progression to arthroplasty rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04-0.60) at final follow-up. Compared with observation, root repair was associated with significantly lower arthroplasty rate (OR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.44) and better International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (MD: 8.07, 95% CI: 0.72-15.41) at final follow-up. Moreover, significantly lower postoperative K-L grade and progression to arthroplasty rate, as well as higher IKDC and Lysholm scores were seen in favor of root repair in patients with isolated meniscus root tears. Additionally, significantly lower OA progression and higher function scores were found in favor of root repair when the tears were repaired with pullout technique. Current evidence indicates that root repair with pullout technique may be a better choice than partial meniscectomy and observation for patients with isolated meniscus root tears as measured by OA progression, progression to arthroplasty, as well as functional outcomes.

Biomechanical assessment of a novel meniscal scaffold compared to partial meniscectomy: A study on porcine meniscal injury.

This study aimed to investigate the appropriate size of scaffold implantation on stress distribution and evaluate its mechanical and biomechanical properties considering hydrolysis. The meniscus acts as a load distribution in the knee, and its biomechanical properties are essential for the development of the PGA scaffold. We established a novel meniscal scaffold, which consists of polyglycolic acid (PGA) covered with L-lactide-ε-caprolactone copolymer (P[LA/CL]). After 4 weeks of hydrolysis, the scaffold had a 7% volume reduction compared to the initial volume. In biomechanical tests, the implantation of scaffolds 20% larger than the circumferential and vertical defect size results in greater contact stress than the intact meniscus. In the mechanical evaluation associated with the decomposition behavior, the strength decreased after 4 weeks of hydrolysis. Meanwhile, in the biomechanical test considering hydrolysis, contact stress and area equivalent to intact were obtained after 4 weeks of hydrolysis. In conclusion, the implantation of the PGA scaffold might be a useful alternative to partial meniscectomy in terms of mechanical properties, and the PGA scaffold should be implanted up to 20% of the defect size.

Aquatic vs. land-based exercise after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in middle-aged active patients with a degenerative meniscal tear: A randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of the value of aquatic exercise (AE) in the postoperative rehabilitation has increased, and several inherent advantages of AE, such as adjustment of both resistance and muscle strengthening parameters makes good rationale for its inclusion in postoperative rehabilitation. This study aimed to determine and compare the benefits of AE and land-based exercise (LBE) on pain, functionality, and quality of life after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). METHODS: This randomized controlled study included 30 middle-aged (35-50), physically active patients who were randomized into LBE (n = 15) and AE (n = 15) groups after APM for a degenerative meniscal tear. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Short Form-36 (SF-36), single-leg hop test and Lysholm questionnaire scores in addition to isokinetic muscle strength values were evaluated at baseline, at fourth week immediately after cessation of exercise program and at eighth week follow-up visits. The exercise sessions were conducted in 1-h sessions per day, three days a week for a total of four weeks. RESULTS: Significant improvement was observed in the VAS, single-leg hop test, Lysholm questionnaire, and most of SF-36 subscale scores in both groups at both fourth and eighth follow-ups. Isokinetic dynamometer revealed significant improvement in the peak torque values for extension at angular velocities of 60° and 180° at both follow-ups in the AE group. LBE group showed significant improvement in the peak torque value for extension only at an angular velocity of 60° only at fourth week follow-up. There was no significant difference between groups for any of these parameters at any of the follow-ups. CONCLUSION: Both AE and LBE programs had significantly improved pain, function, isokinetic muscle strength, and quality of life in patients after APM. Either type of exercise is essential as part of the rehabilitation protocol for good clinical outcomes after APM and should not be neglected (level II). CLINICALTRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04925726.

Predictors of Disparities in Patient-Reported Outcomes before and after Arthroscopic Meniscectomy.

The purpose of this study is to identify predictors of disparities in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) before and after arthroscopic meniscectomy. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was used in this study. All patients who underwent single-knee arthroscopic meniscectomy from January 2012 to March 2018 performed by a single surgeon at an academic safety-net hospital were identified. We excluded patients who had undergone ipsilateral previous knee surgery, bilateral meniscectomy, or concomitant ligament, cartilage, or osteotomy procedures, and those with severe radiographic osteoarthritis in the operated knee, missing preoperative data, or military insurance. Data abstracted from medical records included demographics (age, sex, race, insurance type), clinical characteristics (body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, and Kellgren-Lawrence [KL] grade), procedure codes, and KOOS assessed before and 90 days after surgery. Multivariable analyses investigated the associations between patient characteristics and the KOOS Pain, other Symptoms, and Function in activities of daily living (ADL) subscales. Among 251 eligible patients, most were female (65.5%), half were of nonwhite race (50.2%), and almost one third were insured by Medicaid (28.6%). Medicaid and black race were statistically significant (p < 0.05) predictors of worse preoperative values for all three KOOS subscales. Medicaid insurance also predicted a lower likelihood of successful surgery, defined as meeting the 10-point minimal clinically important difference, for the KOOS symptoms (p < 0.05) and KOOS ADL (p < 0.05) subscales. Compared with patients without definitive evidence of radiographic osteoarthrosis (KL grade 1), those with moderate radiographic osteoarthritis (KL grade 3) were less likely to have a successful surgical outcome (p < 0.05 for all subscales). Worse preoperative KOOS values predicted worse postoperative KOOS values (p < 0.001 for all subscales) and a lower likelihood of surgical success (p < 0.01 for all subscales). Insurance-based disparities in access to orthopaedic care for meniscus tears may explain worse preoperative PROMs and lower success rates of meniscectomy among Medicaid patients. Patients with meniscus tears and radiological and/or magnetic resonance imaging evidence of osteoarthritis should be carefully evaluated to determine the appropriateness of arthroscopic meniscectomy.

Examining the Efficacy of Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Repair: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Biomechanical and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Medial meniscus posterior root (MMPR) injuries accelerate the progression of osteoarthritis. While partial meniscectomy was once considered the gold standard for treatment, meniscus root repair has become increasingly utilized with reported improvements in clinical and biomechanical outcomes. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of biomechanical outcomes and a meta-analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes after MMPR repair. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2021 for studies reporting biomechanical, clinical, and radiographic outcomes after MMPR repair. Biomechanical studies were assessed for main results and conclusions. Data including study characteristics, cohort demographics, and outcomes were extracted. Included clinical studies were analyzed with a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions for binary outcomes or continuous outcomes for mean differences between preoperative and postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis for studies reporting repair outcomes with concomitant high tibial osteotomy (HTO) was performed where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 13 biomechanical studies were identified and reported an overall improvement in mean and peak contact pressures after MMPR repair. There were 24 clinical studies, consisting of 876 patients (877 knees), identified, with 3 studies (106 knees) reporting outcomes with concomitant HTO. The mean patient age was 57.1 years (range, 23-74 years), with a mean follow-up of 27.7 months (range, 2-64 months). Overall, clinical outcomes (Lysholm, Hospital for Special Surgery, International Knee Documentation Committee, visual analog scale for pain, Tegner, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score scores) were noted to improve postoperatively compared with preoperatively, with improved Lysholm scores in patients undergoing concomitant HTO versus MMPR repair alone. Meniscal extrusion was not significantly improved after MMPR repair compared with preoperative measurements. The progression in Kellgren-Lawrence grades from grade 0 to grades 1 to 3 occurred in 5.9% (21/354) of patients after repair, with no patients progressing from grades 1 to 3 to grade 4. CONCLUSION: MMPR repair generally improved biomechanical outcomes and led to improved patient-reported outcomes with greater improvements noted in patients undergoing concomitant HTO. Repair did not significantly improve meniscal extrusion, while only 5.9% of patients were noted to progress to low-grade osteoarthritis. The high level of heterogeneity in the included biomechanical and clinical investigations emphasizes the need for more well-designed studies that evaluate outcomes after MMPR repair.

Has Arthroscopic Meniscectomy Use Changed in Response to the Evidence? A Large-database Study From Spain.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized clinical trials on the treatment of meniscal tears have shown that surgery is not superior to nonoperative treatment in middle-aged and older adults. However, clinical practice has not changed consistently worldwide in response to this evidence, and arthroscopic meniscectomy remains one of the most frequently performed operations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How has the use of arthroscopic meniscectomy changed in Spain between 2003 and 2018, particularly in middle-aged (35 to 59 years) and older patients (over 60 years) relative to younger patients? (2) How have surgical volumes changed across different healthcare areas in the same health system? (3) How has the proportion of outpatient versus inpatient arthroscopic procedures changed over time? METHODS: Data on all 420,228 arthroscopic meniscectomies performed in Spain between 2003 and 2018 were obtained through the Atlas of Variations in Medical Practice project (these years were chosen because data in that atlas for 2002 and 2019 were incomplete). This database has been promoted by the Spanish Health Ministry since 2002, and it collects basic information on all admissions to public and public-private partnership hospitals. The Spanish population of 2003 was used to calculate age- and sex-standardized rates of interventions per 10,000 inhabitants and year. To assess the change in standardized rates among the age groups over the study period, a linear regression analysis was used. Standard small-area variation statistics were used to analyze variation among healthcare areas. Data on outpatient surgery and length of stay for inpatient procedures were also included. RESULTS: The standardized rate of arthroscopic meniscectomy in Spain in 2003 was 4.8 procedures per 10,000 population (95% CI 3.9 to 5.6), while in 2018, there were 6.3 procedures per 10,000 population (95% CI 5.4 to 7.3), which represents an increase of 33%. Standardized rates increased slightly in the age group < 35 years (0.06 interventions per 10,000 inhabitants per year [95% CI 0.05 to 0.08]), whereas they increased more markedly in the age groups of 35 to 59 years (0.14 interventions per 10,000 inhabitants per year [95% CI 0.11 to 0.17]) and in those 60 years and older (0.13 interventions per 10,000 inhabitants per year [95% CI 0.09 to 0.17]). The variability among healthcare areas in the meniscectomy rate progressively decreased from 2003 to 2018. In 2003, 32% (6544 of 20,384) of knee arthroscopies were performed on an outpatient basis, while in 2018, these accounted for 67% (19,573 of 29,430). CONCLUSION: We observed a progressive increase in arthroscopic meniscectomies in Spain; this procedure was more prevalent in older patients presumed to have degenerative pathologic findings. This increase occurred despite increasing high-level evidence of a lack of the additional benefit of meniscectomy over other less-invasive treatments in middle-aged and older people. Our study highlights the need for action in health systems with the use of financial, regulatory, or incentive strategies to reduce the use of low-value procedures, as well as interventions to disseminate the available evidence to clinicians and patients. Research is needed to identify the barriers that are preventing the reversal of interventions that high-quality evidence shows are ineffective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.