Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy for a Degenerative Meniscus Tear Is Not Cost Effective Compared With Placebo Surgery: An Economic Evaluation Based on the FIDELITY Trial Data.

BACKGROUND: In patients with a degenerative tear of the medial meniscus, recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown no treatment benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) over conservative treatment or placebo surgery. Yet, advocates of APM still argue that APM is cost effective. Giving advocates of APM their due, we note that there is evidence from the treatment of other musculoskeletal complaints to suggest that a treatment may prove cost effective even in the absence of improvements in efficacy outcomes, as it may lead to other benefits, such as diminished productivity loss and reduced costs, and so the question of cost effectiveness needs to be answered for APM. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does APM result in lower postoperative costs compared with placebo surgery? (2) Is APM cost-effective compared with placebo surgery? METHODS: One hundred forty-six adults aged 35 to 65 years with knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis according to the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria were randomized to APM (n = 70) or placebo surgery (n = 76). In the APM and placebo surgery groups, mean age was 52 ± 7 years and 52 ± 7 years, and 60% (42 of 70) and 62% (47 of 76) of participants were men, respectively. There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics. In both groups, a standard diagnostic arthroscopy was first performed. Thereafter, in the APM group, the torn meniscus was trimmed to solid meniscus tissue, whereas in the placebo surgery group, APM was carefully mimicked but no resection of meniscal tissue was performed; as such, surgical costs were the same in both arms and were not included in the analyses. All patients received identical postoperative care including a graduated home-based exercise program. At the 2-year follow-up, two patients were lost to follow-up, both in the placebo surgery group. Cost effectiveness over the 2-year trial period was computed as incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), using both the societal (primary) and healthcare system (secondary) perspectives. To be able to consider APM cost effective, the CEA analysis should yield a positive INMB value. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to assess uncertainty. Several one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: APM did not deliver lower postoperative costs, nor did it convincingly improve quality of life scores when compared with placebo surgery. From a societal perspective, APM was associated with € 971 (95% CI -2013 to 4017) higher costs and 0.015 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.041) improved QALYs over 2-year follow-up compared with placebo surgery. Both differences were statistically inconclusive (a wide 95% CI that crossed the line of no difference). Using the conventional willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 35,000 per QALY, APM resulted in a negative INMB of € -460 (95% CI -3757 to 2698). In our analysis, APM would result in a positive INMB only when the WTP threshold rises to about € 65,000 per QALY. The wide 95% CIs suggests uncertain cost effectiveness irrespective of chosen WTP threshold. CONCLUSION: The results of this study lend further support to clinical practice guidelines recommending against the use of APM in patients with a degenerative meniscus tear. Given the robustness of existing evidence demonstrating no benefit or cost effectiveness of APM over nonsurgical treatment or placebo surgery, future research is unlikely to alter this conclusion.Level of Evidence Level III, economic analysis.

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.

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.

The pie-crusting release of the medial collateral ligament in arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is associated with improved clinical outcomes without altering radiological measurements.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate how the pie-crusting technique affects clinical and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. METHODS: A total of 68 patients with Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade 2 who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy between 2015 and 2021 were evaluated and divided into two groups as arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (36 patients) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy with pie-crusting (32 patients) according to whether the pie-crusting technique was applied or not. All patients were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up in terms of Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score. To assess the impact of the pie-crusting technique, radiological measurements were conducted using radiographs taken before and after pie-crusting, as well as postoperative radiographs. RESULTS: Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC and VAS scores exhibited statistically significant differences after surgery compared to preoperative evaluations in both groups (p < 0.05). Furthermore, these scores were significantly superior in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy with pie-crusting group compared to the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group at 24 months postoperatively (p < 0.05). While the radiological measurements in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy with pie-crusting group showed statistically significant differences before and after pie-crusting (p < 0.05), no significant difference was observed between before pie-crusting and 12 and 24 months postoperatively (n.s.). CONCLUSION: The current study is the first to demonstrate the true effectiveness of the pie-crusting technique. The application of the pie-crusting technique when necessary results in a statistically significant improvement in clinical scores without affecting radiological measurements for patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared to not utilising it. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Participation of patients during arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is conducive to postoperative rehabilitation and satisfaction: a single-center retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of patient participation in arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) on rehabilitation and patient satisfaction. METHODS: A total of 86 patients of traumatic longitudinal vertical meniscus tears, between January 2017 and December 2020 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The patients in the intraoperative participation group (n = 33) were awake and could watch the screen during APM and communicate with the surgeon in the surgery; patients who underwent APM in the traditional mode were classified as the traditional group(n = 53). The differences in exercise adherence, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and satisfaction at follow-up were compared. In the intraoperative participation group, the mean age of the patients was 26.97 ± 5.63 years and the follow-up time was 25.12 ± 6.23 months. In the traditional group, the mean age of the patients was 29.21 ± 5.29 years and the follow-up time was 25.08 ± 6.70 months. RESULTS: The intraoperative participation group reported a better result in exercise adherence (78.79% VS 50.94%, p = 0.012). As secondary outcomes, Patients in the intraoperative participation group demonstrated better scores on the KOOS domains of pain (79.80 ± 6.38 VS 76.26 ± 5.33, p = 0.007), Symptoms (59.41 ± 5.27 VS 56.74 ± 5.97, p = 0.038), and QOL (65.91 ± 10.72 VS 60.26 ± 9.34, p = 0.012), as compared to these in the traditional group. There were no significant differences in the KOOS domains of Sport (72.88 ± 8.20 VS 72.64 ± 7.70, P = 0.892), and ADL (89.47 ± 3.50 VS 87.87 ± 4.50 p = 0.085). what's more, in the intraoperative participation group, the results of satisfaction (96.97% VS 81.13%, p = 0.025) were also significantly better. CONCLUSION: The mode of participation of patients during APM can improve patients' exercise adherence, reduce pain, improve symptoms and improve patients' satisfaction as well as the quality of life. More work is needed to develop this mode further.

Editorial Commentary: Meniscal Repair, When Possible, Is Better for Patients Than Meniscectomy.

Patients do not do as well after meniscectomy as after repair. Although saving the meniscus is not always easy and the success rate of repair is not 100%, repair-when possible-remains the best option for patients in the long run. Meniscal repair rates are on the rise, especially in younger patients, but are not high enough. Recent research has shown that more than 95% of meniscal procedures are partial meniscectomies. Improved surgical techniques and instrumentation, as well as a continued increase in understanding the importance of repair, are leading to an increase in meniscal repair rates. Preserve as much meniscus as possible and as often as possible.

Isolated Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Is More Effective at Improving Meniscal Symptoms in Comparison With Mechanical Symptoms in Patients With Concomitant Untreated Chondral Lesions.

PURPOSE: To rank Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questions from most to least improvement after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) and compare improvement of meniscal versus mechanical symptoms. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Chondral Lesions and Meniscus Procedures (ChAMP) Trial was performed. Inclusion criteria were age 30 years or older with degenerative meniscal tear failing nonoperative management, with or without associated unstable chondral lesions. No chondral debridement was performed. Responses to the 42 KOOS questions ranged from 0 (extreme problems) to 4 (no problems), and were answered preoperatively and at 1 year after isolated APM. The 1-year mean change, or delta (Δ), was calculated for each KOOS question and the Δ for meniscal and mechanical symptoms were statistically compared. RESULTS: Greatest improvement in 135 eligible patients was observed for questions about (1) awareness of knee problems (Δ = 1.93, standard deviation [SD] = 1.38), (2) frequency of knee pain (Δ = 1.93, SD = 1.29), (3) degree of difficulty while twisting/pivoting on the injured knee (Δ = 1.88, SD = 1.13), (4) degree of difficulty while running (Δ = 1.67, SD = 1.30), and (5) being troubled by lack of confidence in the knee (Δ = 21.67, SD = 1.11). Least improvement was observed for questions about: (1) degree of difficulty while getting on/off the toilet (Δ = 0.94, SD = 0.96), (2) feel grinding or hear clicking when the knee moves (Δ= 0.90, SD = 1.25), 3) degree of difficulty while getting in/out of the bath (Δ= 0.88, SD = 1.00), (4) knee catches/hangs up during movement (Δ= 0.80, SD = 1.09), and (5) the ability to straighten the knee fully (Δ= 0.54, 1.44). There was greater improvement for the KOOS questions pertaining to meniscal versus mechanical symptoms (P < .00001). CONCLUSIONS: KOOS symptoms as reported by subjects' responses to the questions pertaining to the frequency of knee pain, twisting/pivoting, running, squatting, and jumping showed the most improvement 1 year after isolated APM, whereas those relating to mechanical symptoms improved the least. Focusing on meniscal rather than mechanical symptoms may help surgeons better identify patients expected to benefit from APM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

Better Outcomes but No Difference in Joint Space Narrowing at Five Years Among Patients Without Unstable Chondral Lesions Versus Those With Unstable Chondral Lesions (Left In Situ) at the Time of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy.

PURPOSE: To compare 5-year outcomes among patients with and without unstable chondral lesions undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). METHODS: Using data from the Chondral Lesions And Meniscal Procedures (ChAMP) Trial, we compared outcomes for patients with unstable chondral lesions found at the time of APM and left in situ (CL-noDeb, N = 71) versus patients without unstable chondral lesions (NoCL, N = 47) at 5 years after APM. Outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), visual analog pain scale, Short-form Health Survey (SF-36), physical knee measurements, progressive joint space narrowing on radiographs, and the rate of additional knee surgery. Multivariate linear regression was used to obtain mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for age, body mass index, and preoperative score (for postoperative scores). RESULTS: Compared with CL-noDeb, NoCL subjects had significantly greater improvement at 5 years in the KOOS score for function in sport and recreation (MD = 9.9 [95% CI, 0.7-19.1]), SF-36 pain (MD = 13.9 [95% CI, 5.5-22.3]), knee extension (MD = 0.8 [95% CI, 0.1-1.5]), and decreased quadriceps circumference at the mid-portion of the patella (MD = -1.5 [95% CI, -2.7 to -0.3). A greater proportion of patients in the NoCL group achieved the MCID for all outcome scores except for the WOMAC pain score (89% CL-NoDeb vs 87% NoCL) and SF-36 general (29% CL-NoDeb vs 23% NoCL). There were no significant group differences in measures of progressive radiographic joint space narrowing in any compartments of the operative knee and no significant difference in the rate of additional knee surgery within 5 years of the initial APM. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing APM without unstable chondral lesions had statistically significantly better outcomes than patients with unstable chondral lesions at 5 years after surgery; however, there were no group differences in progressive radiographic joint space narrowing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Meniscal allograft transplantation shows a mismatch between anatomic and clinical failures.

PURPOSE: Clinical results of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) are not always consistent with graft status. This study aimed to investigate (1) the degree and pattern of mismatch between anatomic and clinical failures in MAT and (2) preoperative factors associated with the mismatch. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-eight consecutive patients who underwent primary medial or lateral MAT during 2004-2015 were reviewed. Anatomic failure was defined as an allograft showing meniscal tear involving > 50% of the graft or unstable peripheral rim. Clinical failure included poor Lysholm score of < 65 and any requirement for re-operations such as arthroplasty, realignment osteotomy, revision MAT, and meniscectomy (more than 50% of the graft or to the zone of meniscocapsular junction). Failure cases were categorised according to the type of failure as follows: (1) type 1, anatomic failure followed by clinical failure; (2) type 2, anatomic failure did not lead to clinical failure; and (3) type 3, clinical failure without anatomic failure. Preoperative factors including age, sex, body mass index, MAT compartment, time from previous meniscectomy, alignment, cartilage status, and accompanying procedures were analysed according to the failure type. RESULTS: Forty (13.4%) patients showed anatomical or clinical failure during the median (25th-75th percentile) follow-up duration of 47 (30-72) months (range 24-178 months). Eleven (3.7%) patients showed both anatomical and clinical failure (type 1 failure). Seventeen (5.7%) patients showed anatomic failure that did not lead to clinical failure (type 2 failure). Twelve (4.0%) patients failed clinically without meniscal tear (> 50% of graft) or unstable peripheral rim (type 3 failure). Comparative analyses among failure types found a significant difference in MAT compartment (p = 0.01). In particular, the incidence of type 3 failure was higher in medial than in lateral MAT (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: A notable number of failure cases of MAT showed a mismatch between anatomic and clinical failures. Even with anatomic failure, MAT did not always lead to poor clinical scores or re-operations, whereas MAT could have poor results without substantial allograft problems. Therefore, both anatomic and clinical aspects should be considered when evaluating MAT. In particular, type 3 failure occurred more frequently in medial than in lateral MAT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

An individualized decision between physical therapy or surgery for patients with degenerative meniscal tears cannot be based on continuous treatment selection markers: a marker-by-treatment analysis of the ESCAPE study.

PURPOSE: Marker-by-treatment analyses are promising new methods in internal medicine, but have not yet been implemented in orthopaedics. With this analysis, specific cut-off points may be obtained, that can potentially identify whether meniscal surgery or physical therapy is the superior intervention for an individual patient. This study aimed to introduce a novel approach in orthopaedic research to identify relevant treatment selection markers that affect treatment outcome following meniscal surgery or physical therapy in patients with degenerative meniscal tears. METHODS: Data were analysed from the ESCAPE trial, which assessed the treatment of patients over 45 years old with a degenerative meniscal tear. The treatment outcome of interest was a clinically relevant improvement on the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form at 3, 12, and 24 months follow-up. Logistic regression models were developed to predict the outcome using baseline characteristics (markers), the treatment (meniscal surgery or physical therapy), and a marker-by-treatment interaction term. Interactions with p < 0.10 were considered as potential treatment selection markers and used these to develop predictiveness curves which provide thresholds to identify marker-based differences in clinical outcomes between the two treatments. RESULTS: Potential treatment selection markers included general physical health, pain during activities, knee function, BMI, and age. While some marker-based thresholds could be identified at 3, 12, and 24 months follow-up, none of the baseline characteristics were consistent markers at all three follow-up times. CONCLUSION: This novel in-depth analysis did not result in clear clinical subgroups of patients who are substantially more likely to benefit from either surgery or physical therapy. However, this study may serve as an exemplar for other orthopaedic trials to investigate the heterogeneity in treatment effect. It will help clinicians to quantify the additional benefit of one treatment over another at an individual level, based on the patient's baseline characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Treatment of post-meniscectomy knee symptoms with medial meniscus replacement results in greater pain reduction and functional improvement than non-surgical care.

PURPOSE: Partial meniscectomy is a common orthopedic procedure intended to improve knee pain and function in patients with irreparable meniscal tears. However, 6-25% of partial meniscectomy patients experience persistent knee pain after surgery. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving subjects with knee pain following partial meniscectomy, it was hypothesized that treatment with a synthetic medial meniscus replacement (MMR) implant provides significantly greater improvements in knee pain and function compared to non-surgical care alone. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter RCT, subjects with persistent knee pain following one or more previous partial meniscectomies were randomized to receive either MMR or non-surgical care. This analysis evaluated the 1-year outcomes of this 2-year clinical trial. Patient-reported knee pain, function, and quality of life were measured using nine separate patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcomes were the pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the average of all five KOOS subscales (KOOS Overall). Treatment cessation was defined as permanent device removal in the MMR group and any surgical procedure to the index knee in the non-surgical care group. RESULTS: Treated subjects had a median age of 52 years old (range 30-69 years) and one or more previous partial meniscectomies at a median of 34 months (range 5-430 months) before trial entry. Among 127 subjects treated with either MMR (n = 61) or non-surgical care (n = 66), 11 withdrew from the trial or were lost to follow-up (MMR, n = 0; non-surgical care, n = 11). The magnitude of improvement from baseline to 1 year was significantly greater in subjects who received MMR in both primary outcomes of KOOS Pain (P = 0.013) and KOOS Overall (P = 0.027). Treatment cessation was reported in 14.5% of non-surgical care subjects and only 4.9% of MMR subjects (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Treatment with the synthetic MMR implant resulted in significantly greater improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 1 year of follow-up compared to treatment with non-surgical care alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.