Editorial Commentary: Polyurethane Meniscal Scaffold Could Serve as a Bridge to Meniscal Allograft or Arthroplasty in Carefully Selected Post-Meniscectomy Patients.

The young, active patient with pain after subtotal meniscectomy represents a troubling clinical situation with limited treatment options. "Post-meniscectomy syndrome" occurs at a rate of 4-25% and is defined as the presence of knee pain and functional limitations due to increased contact stresses and overload of the articular cartilage in a knee compartment, after subtotal or total meniscectomy. Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) can have reasonable results for some patients, typically under the age of 50, with no degenerative change, and no, or correctable instability or malalignment. However, MAT is expensive, it is often difficult to access meniscal allograft tissue, and the procedure can be technically challenging for the surgeon. Meniscal scaffolds have been commercially available and examined in small studies in the literature and metanalyses since the early 2000s. Generally, patients have shown clinical improvement with their use, but over time, they have shown signs of radiologic failure (decrease in size of the meniscal scaffold, meniscal extrusion on MRI, or other radiographic changes.) Nonetheless, recent research shows long-term survivorship of a polyurethane scaffold in some, carefully selected patients. While not shown to be chondroprotective, this could serve as a bridge to MAT or arthroplasty.

Clinical Outcomes After Polyurethane Meniscal Scaffolds Implantation Remain Stable Despite a Joint Space Narrowing at 10-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To report the clinical outcomes, radiologic evolution, and survivorship of a series of patients affected by the postmeniscectomy syndrome and treated with a polyurethane scaffold at a minimum 10-year follow-up. In addition, the radiologic evolution of these patients was also assessed. METHODS: All the patients operated on with a polyurethane meniscal scaffold implantation to treat postmeniscectomy syndrome from 2008 to 2011 were prospectively followed. Clinical evaluations and radiologic studies were assessed at the preoperative period, at 5-year follow-up, and at minimum 10-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes were based on patient-reported outcomes (e.g., the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, and Tegner). Radiographical evaluation of the joint-space narrowing was done in the Rosenberg view. Failure was defined as patients who required surgery to remove the scaffold or those patients who needed surgery for a total or partial knee replacement. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 27 patients, with a mean age of 56 ± 9.8 years, were available for the final follow-up. The mean follow-up was 11.8 (range, 10-12.7) years. Six patients were lost to follow-up. All functional scores showed a significant improvement (P < .001) at the 5- and 10-year follow-up. The exception was the Tegner score, which remained stable. The joint-space width was maintained from the preoperative period (1.9 ± 1.2 mm) up to the 5-year follow-up (1.3 ± 1.5 mm, P = .3) and decreased by the last evaluation (0.6 ± 1.2 mm, P = .001) at the last follow-up. Two (9.5%) of 21 patients were converted to a total knee replacement during the study period. None of the other patients needed revision surgery during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The polyurethane meniscal scaffold provides significant and stable pain relief over time and improved functional outcomes at a minimum of 10 years after surgery. However, degenerative changes progressed in the treated compartment, with a joint-space narrowing over the 10-year period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.

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.

Placement of a polyurethane implant is not associated with a chondroprotective effect: comparative study with cases of isolated medial meniscectomy with at least five years of follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Our main objective was to evaluate clinically and radiologically and compare patients who had undergone partial meniscectomy alone, with those who had received a partial meniscectomy in which a polyurethane implant was placed, with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study. Patients were randomly distributed into Group A if they only received meniscectomy or Group B if they received meniscectomy plus a meniscal implant (Actifit®). We performed preoperative, postoperative, and 5-year-follow-up functional and radiological evaluations (magnetic resonance imaging). RESULTS: Twelve patients (40%) were treated with meniscal implants (Group B); 18 (60%) were treated with a conventional meniscectomy (Group A). Tegner, Lysholm and KOOS scores were evaluated prior to surgery and at 5-year follow-up. Only the Lysholm score showed a significant difference between groups, with a score increase between the preoperative evaluation and the 5-year follow-up evaluation (p = 0.013). Preoperative and postoperative MRIs were both available in 19 cases (63.3%). Long-term follow-up MRIs were performed in 11 cases of group B. No significant differences were found in functional outcomes or MRI findings (WORMS cartilage score increase p = 0.360). Although total reabsorptions of the collagen meniscus implant were not statistically significant in younger patients, a tendency towards a higher reabsorption process was seen in older patients (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: The placement of a polyurethane implant after a wide meniscectomy is not accompanied by a chondroprotective effect over time. There is no functional difference between implant placement and isolated meniscectomy. There is a discrepancy between good clinical results and radiologic appearance of these implants and their underlying cartilage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, therapeutic study.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Combined P188 Treatment and Surgical Intervention in Preventing Post-Traumatic Osteoarthritis Following a Traumatic Knee Injury.

Previous studies have shown that reconstructive surgery alone following injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) does not prevent the development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA). Poloxamer 188 (P188) has been shown to prevent cell death following trauma in both articular cartilage and meniscal tissue. This study aims to test the efficacy of single or multiple administrations of P188 in conjunction with reconstructive surgery to help prevent or delay the onset of the disease. Thirty skeletally mature rabbits underwent closed-joint trauma that resulted in ACL rupture and meniscal damage and were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups with varying doses of P188. ACL reconstruction was then performed using an autograft from the semitendinosus tendon. Animals were euthanized 1-month following trauma, meniscal tissue was assessed for changes in morphology, mechanical properties, and proteoglycan content. Femurs and tibias were scanned using microcomputed tomography to determine changes in bone quality, architecture, and osteophyte formation. The medial meniscus experienced more damage and a decrease in the instantaneous modulus regardless of treatment group, while P188 treatment tended to limit degenerative changes in the lateral meniscus. Both lateral and medial menisci had documented decreases in the equilibrium modulus and inconsistent changes in proteoglycan content. Minimal changes were documented in the tibias and femurs, with the only significant change being the formation of osteophytes in both bones regardless of treatment group. The data suggest that P188 was able to limit some degenerative changes in the meniscus associated with PTOA and may warrant future studies.

A Comparison Between Polyurethane and Collagen Meniscal Scaffold for Partial Meniscal Defects: Similar Positive Clinical Results at a Mean of 10 Years of Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To compare, at long-term follow-up, the clinical outcomes and failures of collagen and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds for the treatment of partial meniscal defects. METHODS: Patients affected by partial meniscal defect with intact anterior and posterior meniscal attachments and an intact rim at the circumference of the missing meniscus were included, treated with a collagen meniscal implant or with polyurethane scaffold, and clinically evaluated by analysis of the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score, the visual analog scale score for the evaluation of knee function and symptoms, and the Tegner score to assess the activity level. RESULTS: After 3 patients dropped out, a total of 47 patients, comprising 31 men and 16 women, with a mean age of 43 ± 14.1 years and mean body mass index of 25 ± 1.4, were clinically evaluated up to a mean of 10 years' follow-up. The International Knee Documentation Committee score improved from 42.9 ± 15.9 to 67.4 ± 12.4 (P < .0005) in the polyurethane implant group and from 46.8 ± 16.7 to 62.1 ± 22.6 (P < .0005) in the collagen meniscal implant group. The visual analog scale score decreased significantly from baseline values of 5.4 ± 2.3 and 4.4 ± 1.7, to 3.4 ± 2.5 and 2.7 ± 2.4, respectively, at final follow-up in the polyurethane implant (P = .002) and collagen meniscal implant (P < .0005) groups. The Tegner score improved in both groups without reaching the preinjury activity level. No significant differences in the scores were found between the polyurethane and collagen scaffold groups. A total of 10 implants failed, 5 per group, for a cumulative failure rate of 21.3%, with no differences between the 2 scaffolds. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term comparison showed positive and similar results for both polyurethane- and collagen-based meniscal scaffolds, with an implant survival rate of about 80% at 10 years of follow-up and no differences in terms of pain, function, and activity level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case-control comparative study.

Integration of polyurethane meniscus scaffold during ACL revision is not reliable at 5 years despite favourable clinical outcome.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome at 5-year follow-up of a one-step procedure combining anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and partial meniscus replacement using a polyurethane scaffold for the treatment of symptomatic patients with previously failed ACL reconstruction and partial medial meniscectomy. Moreover, the implanted scaffolds have been evaluated by MRI protocol in terms of morphology, volume, and signal intensity. METHODS: Twenty patients with symptomatic knee laxity after failed ACL reconstruction and partial medial meniscectomy underwent ACL revision combined with polyurethane-based meniscal scaffold implant. Clinical assessment at 2- and 5-year follow-ups included VAS, Tegner Activity Score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Lysholm Score. MRI evaluation of the scaffold was performed according to the Genovese scale with quantification of the scaffold's volume at 1- and 5-year follow-ups. RESULTS: All scores revealed clinical improvement as compared with the preoperative values at the 2- and 5-year follow-ups. However, a slight, but significant reduction of scores was observed between 2 and 5 years. Concerning the MRI assessment, a significant reduction of the scaffold's volume was observed between 1 and 5 years. Genovese Morphology classification at 5 years included two complete resorptions (Type 3) and all the remaining patients had irregular morphology (Type 2). With regard to the Genovese Signal at the 5-year follow-up, three were classified as markedly hyperintense (Type 1), 15 as slightly hyperintense (Type 2), and two as isointense (Type 1). CONCLUSION: Simultaneous ACL reconstruction and partial meniscus replacement using a polyurethane scaffold provides favourable clinical outcomes in the treatment of symptomatic patients with previously failed ACL reconstruction and partial medial meniscectomy at 5 years. However, MRI evaluation suggests that integration of the scaffold is not consistent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Polyurethane scaffold implants for partial meniscus lesions: delayed intervention leads to an inferior outcome.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of the implantation of an aliphatic polyurethane scaffold for the treatment of partial loss of meniscal tissue at a mean follow-up of 36 months. METHODS: A retrospective review on prospectively collected data was performed on patients who underwent implantation of an aliphatic polyurethane-based synthetic meniscal scaffold. Patients were evaluated for demographics data, lesion and implant characteristics (sizing, type and number of meniscal sutures), previous and combined surgeries and complications. Clinical parameters were rated using NRS, IKDC subjective, Lysholm, KOOS, and Tegner activity score, both preoperatively and at final follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 36 months (48 M and 19 F; mean age 40.8 ± 10.6 years; mean BMI 25.4 ± 4.3). The scaffold was implanted on the medial side in 54 cases, and on the lateral one in 13. Forty-seven patients had undergone previous surgical treatment at the same knee and 45 required combined surgical procedures. All evaluated scores improved significantly from the baseline. Among possible prognostic factors, a delayed scaffold implantation had lower post-operative clinical scores: IKDC subjective (P = 0.049), KOOS Sport (P = 0.044), KOOS total (p = 0.011), and Tegner (P = 0.03) scores at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The polyurethane meniscal scaffold implantation led to a significant clinical benefit in a large number of patients. A delayed intervention correlated with worse results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Meniscal scaffold for the treatment of partial meniscal defect-clinical and radiological outcomes in a two-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: The aim of meniscal scaffolds is to fill the defect, allow regeneration of meniscal-like tissues, and to prevent long-term risk of cartilage wear and tear. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical results after two years and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results a year after implantation of a meniscal scaffold. METHODS: Fifteen patients were recruited into a prospective, single-arm, single-center study, and treated with meniscal scaffolds as a result of segmental meniscal defect due to previous partial meniscectomy. Patients were evaluated using functional knee scores used pre-operatively and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The radiological outcome was assessed using MRI at 12 months by evaluating scaffold size, morphology, and intensity according to the Genovese grading system. Cartilage assessment was completed according to The International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) score. RESULTS: All patients completed a follow-up of 24 months. A statistically significant increase in mean levels of all functional scores was present in all patients. On the MRI, all but one of the patients presented an incorporated meniscal implant. In most of the patients (73%), the meniscal implant was a Genovese type III. Type II and III signal intensities were present in all scaffolds when compared with the residual meniscal tissue. A stable cartilage (ICRS) status was observed in 80% of the patients compared with the pre-operative cartilage scores. CONCLUSION: In our case series of patients treated with the meniscal scaffold implant, we observed good clinical results at a two year follow-up. Furthermore, MRI findings suggest that meniscal scaffolds might have a beneficial effect on articular cartilage.

Functional and magnetic resonance imaging outcome after polyurethane meniscal scaffold implantation following partial meniscectomy.

PURPOSE: Prevention of the knee osteoarthritis following meniscectomy is implantation of an allotransplant or an artificial meniscus. We present retrospective study of our early results of the treatment using polyurethane meniscal scaffold. METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, we implanted nine polyurethane scaffolds (Actifit) after partial meniscectomy, five males and four females, age 36 (16-47), BMI 26.7 (17.2-35.9) kg/m2. Functional status, activity, pain, and MRI were assessed. RESULTS: FU 20.8 (6-48.5) months, 35.2 (0-68) months from the meniscectomy to the implantation. The average implant length was 46.1 (35-60) mm, average number of sutures was 7.6 (5-10). Lysholm score before surgery was 61.7 (49-85), after the surgery 86.4 (62-95) with p 0.0045, Tegner activity score before meniscectomy was 5.8 (4-7), after 3.8 (2-5), and after the scaffold implantation 4.6 (3-7) with p 0.0488. Before surgery, VAS score was 3.1 (2-4), and after 7.7 (5-9) with p 0.0042. Pursuant to the Genovese classification, the last follow-up MRI showed a type 2 meniscal morphology in four cases and a type 3 in five cases. Seven patients had type 1 and two had type 2 signal intensity. On average, the absolute extrusion of a transplanted meniscus was 3.67 mm, and the relative extrusion was 0.58 mm. Extrusion progress was not detected. CONCLUSION: Significantly improved knee functionality, increased level of physical activity, and reduced pain. MRI analysis revealed the meniscal transplant morphology and volume loss, as well as its extrusion without progression.

SDF-1 preconditioned HPC scaffolds mobilize cartilage-derived progenitors and stimulate meniscal fibrocartilage repair in human explant tissue culture.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to characterize the influence of SDF-1 on cell migration/adhesion and temporal gene expression of human cartilage mesenchymal progenitor cells (C-PCs); and to utilize SDF-1 conditioned mesenchymal progenitors to stimulate reintegration of human meniscus fibrocartilage breaks.Materials and Methods: Characterization of SDF-1-induced cell migration was achieved using hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) scaffolds pretreated with SDF-1. Fluorescence microscopy and cell counting were used to visualize and quantify the extent of cell migration into scaffolds, respectively. Relative mRNA expression analysis was used to characterize the temporal effects of SDF-1 on C-PCs. Tissue reintegration experiments were conducted using cylindrical human meniscal tissue punches, which were then placed back together with an HPC scaffold embedded with C-PCs. Tensile testing was used to evaluate the extent of tissue reintegration stimulated by human mesenchymal progenitors.Results: C-PCs migrate into scaffolds in response to SDF-1 with the same efficiency as mesenchymal progenitors from human marrow (BM-MSCs). SDF-1 treatment of C-PCs did not significantly alter the expression of early and late stage chondrogenic differentiation genes. Scaffolds containing SDF-1 pre-conditioned C-PCs successfully adhered to fibrocartilage breaks and migrated from the scaffold into the tissue. Tensile testing demonstrated that SDF-1 preconditioned C-PCs stimulate reintegration of fibrocartilage tears.Conclusion: C-PCs migrate in response to SDF-1. Exposure to SDF-1 does not significantly alter the unique mRNA profile of C-PCs that make them desirable for cartilaginous tissue repair applications. SDF-1 pretreated mesenchymal progenitors successfully disperse into injured tissues to help facilitate tissue reintegration.

The Biomechanical Performance of the Latest All-Inside Meniscal Repair Devices.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of recently introduced meniscal repair devices with a hand-tied, inside-out meniscal suture in a human meniscus model. METHODS: In detached adult human menisci, vertical longitudinal cuts were created 3 mm from the synovial-meniscal junction, simulating a bucket-handle meniscal tear. Each cut was repaired using a single device. Group 1 received a vertical mattress suture of No. 2-0 OrthoCord; group 2, TrueSpan device with PEEK (polyether ether ketone) anchors containing No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture; group 3, TrueSpan device with biodegradable poly-lactide-co-glycolide (PLGA) anchors containing No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture; group 4, Meniscal Cinch II device; group 5, AIR meniscal repair device; and group 6, FasT-Fix 360 device. All samples were preloaded at 5 N and cycled 200 times between 5 and 20 N. The specimens that survived cyclic loading were destructively tested at 12.5 mm/s. Endpoints included maximum load, displacement, stiffness, and failure mode. RESULTS: The mean failure loads were as follows: 95.8 N for OrthoCord suture, 87.1 N for TrueSpan with PEEK, 84.6 N for TrueSpan with PLGA, 48.6 N for Meniscal Cinch II, 72.3 N for AIR, and 68.1 N for FasT-Fix 360. Repairs performed with OrthoCord suture (P = .002) and both TrueSpan devices (P < .03) but not the FasT-Fix 360 device or AIR device were statistically significantly stronger than Meniscal Cinch II repairs. Mean cyclic displacement measured 1.1 mm for OrthoCord, 1.5 mm for TrueSpan with PEEK, 1.5 mm for TrueSpan with PLGA, 2.1 mm for Meniscal Cinch II, 1.1 mm for AIR, and 1.4 mm for FasT-Fix 360. The Meniscal Cinch II device showed more displacement than all other devices (P < .05). The FasT-Fix 360, AIR, and Meniscal Cinch II devices failed by anchor pullout from the peripheral meniscus. OrthoCord and both TrueSpan devices failed by suture pulling through the bucket-handle tissue. CONCLUSIONS: OrthoCord suture is stronger than the AIR, FasT-Fix 360, and Meniscal Cinch II devices. The TrueSpan device with PEEK and TrueSpan device with PLGA are stronger than the Meniscal Cinch II device. The Meniscal Cinch II device failed during cyclic loading with greater cyclic displacement than the AIR device, FasT-Fix 360 device, OrthoCord, and TrueSpan device with PEEK. The Meniscal Cinch II, AIR, and FasT-Fix 360 devices failed by anchor pullout, whereas OrthoCord and both TrueSpan devices failed by suture pull-through. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Some newly introduced all-inside meniscal repair devices show inferior failure strength compared with earlier versions that might adversely impact clinical outcomes.

Treatment options for the symptomatic post-meniscectomy knee.

PURPOSE: To provide a current review on the evidence for management of the symptomatic meniscus-deficient knee. METHODS: A literature review was performed detailing the natural history and origin of symptoms in a meniscus-deficient knee, in addition to strategies for non-surgical management, meniscus scaffolds, meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT), isolated cartilage repair, unloading osteotomies, meniscus prosthesis, and joint replacements which were revealed as treatment possibilities. RESULTS: Meniscus deficiency was recognized to lead to an early onset knee osteoarthritis (OA). A subset of patients develop post-meniscectomy syndrome: dull and nagging pain after a short pain-free interval subsequently to meniscectomy, which can be accompanied by transient effusions. Evidence for non-surgical management of post-meniscectomy knee pain is lacking. Two available meniscus scaffolds, indicated for symptomatic segmental meniscus deficiency, show pain relief at mid-term follow-up, and effect on joint preservation is unclear. MAT represents a durable solution for sub/total meniscus deficiency (80% survival at 10 years), but it is still considered a temporary solution for post-meniscectomy pain. MAT may also reduce the progression of OA. Isolated cartilage repair without a meniscus reconstruction is commonly performed, but better results were reported with preserved or reconstructed menisci. Osteotomies are used in the combination of misaligned knee and meniscus reconstruction or as pain solution for irreversible unilateral knee structural changes following a meniscectomy. Polycarbonate-urethane medial meniscus prosthesis is currently undergoing clinical trial. Joint replacements should be limited to later stages of post-meniscectomy OA. CONCLUSIONS: Post-meniscectomy pain syndrome and post-meniscectomy knee OA are common findings after meniscus resection. Short-term pain relief is provided by non-surgical management, mid-term pain relief by meniscus scaffolds, and long-term relief by MAT, though each has differing indications. In later stages, osteotomies and joint replacements are indicated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Are the Biological and Biomechanical Properties of Meniscal Scaffolds Reflected in Clinical Practice? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

The aim of this PRISMA review was to assess whether the CMI and Actifit scaffolds, when used in clinical practice, improve clinical outcomes and demonstrate the ideal biological and biomechanical properties of scaffolds: being chondroprotective, porous, resorbable, able to mature and promote regeneration of tissue. This was done by only including studies that assessed clinical outcome and used a scale to assess both integrity of the scaffold and its effects on articular cartilage via MRI. A search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov. 2457 articles were screened, from which eight studies were selected: four used Actifit, three used CMI and one compared the two. All studies reported significant improvement in at least one clinical outcome compared to baseline. Some studies suggested that the scaffolds appeared to show porosity, mature, resorb and/or have possible chondroprotective effects, as assessed by MRI. The evidence for clinical translation is limited by differences in study methodology and small sample sizes, but is promising in terms of improving clinical outcomes in the short to mid-term. Higher level evidence, with MRI and histological evaluation of the scaffold and articular cartilage, is now needed to further determine whether these scaffolds exhibit these useful properties.

Iatrogenic cartilage injury associated with the use of stainless-steel cannulas and silicone-guarded cannulas for canine stifle arthroscopy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability to reduce iatrogenic cartilage injury (IACI) during canine stifle arthroscopy by using a silicone arthroscope cannula guard. STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo canine cadaver experimental study. ANIMALS: Paired canine stifles from 14 cadavers (≥20 kg). METHODS: Stifles (N = 28) were assigned to unguarded traditional or silicone-guarded arthroscopy. Stifle arthroscopy and full joint exploration with meniscal probing was performed by a second-year surgery resident (I.C.) in fourteen canine cadavers, alternating between left and right stifles for guarded vs unguarded arthroscopy. After arthroscopy, stifles were disarticulated, and india ink assay was performed to identify IACI. Total IACI number, lesion length and area, duration of procedure, and procedure difficulty score were recorded for each stifle. RESULTS: Unguarded arthroscopy resulted in more total IACI per joint (unguarded 5.2 ± 3.0, guarded 2.4 ± 1.4; P = .02), larger IACI area (unguarded 5.2 ± 4.2 mm2 , guarded 2.3 ± 1.5 mm2 ; P = .02), and IACI length (unguarded 13.6 ± 6.9 mm, guarded 8.6 ± 5.9 mm; P = .03). No difference was identified in duration of procedure (unguarded 11.8 ± 5.2 minutes, guarded 13.8 ± 4.3 minutes; P = .79) or procedure difficulty score (unguarded 1.7 ± 0.6, guarded 1.6 ± 0.6 P = .73). CONCLUSION: Silicone-guarded arthroscope cannulas decreased IACI number and size during canine cadaveric stifle arthroscopy without increasing duration of procedure or surgical difficulty. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Silicone-guarded arthroscope cannulas may be safer than traditional cannulas for novice veterinary surgeons performing stifle arthroscopy.

Editorial Commentary: Polyurethane Meniscal Scaffold: A Perfect Fit or Flop?

The goal of using a synthetic scaffold to establish a biomechanically functioning meniscus or provide an equivalent meniscus substitute is not achieved by the polycaprolactone-polyurethane Actifit scaffold. Recent research, that did not include a control group, shows that the revision rate is significant, and any improvements in patient outcomes could reflect the associated reconstructive surgery. Based on these data and similar published reports, it is premature to conclude that this implant is clinically indicated. The technique is currently more flop than fit.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Functional Outcomes After a Polyurethane Meniscal Scaffold Implantation: Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

PURPOSE: To report the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical outcomes at a minimum 5-year follow-up in a series of patients with postmeniscectomy syndrome and treated with a polyurethane scaffold. METHODS: All consecutive patients operated on from September 2008 to February 2011 for either persistent medial or lateral joint line compartmental pain receiving a polyurethane scaffold due to a previous partial meniscus resection with a minimum 5-year follow-up were included. Functional scores (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score, International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, and Tegner) were assessed preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The state of the scaffold as well as postoperative scaffold extrusion and the total remaining meniscal volume was also evaluated in MRI. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included. The mean follow-up was 70.8 ± 7.5 months. The functionality of the knees improved in all the scores used (P < .001) except for the Tegner score that stayed steady. Most of meniscal implants showed extrusion of 2.4 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.7) were smaller and a hyperintensity signal was seen in the MRI. Three scaffolds were resorbed at the last follow-up. The meniscal volume, determined by MRI, was 1.14 cm3 (95% CI, 0.96-1.31) preoperatively and 1.61 cm3 (95% CI, 1.43-1.7) at the last follow-up. No differences were presented. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a polyurethane meniscal scaffold in patients with a symptomatic meniscus deficit had a good functional outcome at 5 years after surgery. However, the implanted scaffolds did not present normal meniscal tissue with MRI, and the implant volume was considerably less than expected. The fact that most of patients included received different concomitant procedures during scaffold implantation introduces a degree of performance bias into the results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

Polyurethane meniscal scaffolds lead to better clinical outcomes but worse articular cartilage status and greater absolute meniscal extrusion.

PURPOSE: Implantation of polyurethane (PU) meniscal scaffolds has become a popular procedure to provide a scaffold for vessel ingrowth and meniscal tissue regeneration in patients with partial meniscal defects. However, it is unclear whether PU meniscal scaffolds lead to better clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes post-operatively. This meta-analysis compared the clinical and MRI outcomes in patients with partial meniscal defects treated with PU meniscal scaffolds. METHODS: This meta-analysis reviewed all studies that assessed Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Tegner score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), articular cartilage (AC), absolute meniscal extrusion (AME), morphology and size (MS), signal intensity (SI) of meniscal implant, and interface of the implant-residual meniscus complex (IIRMC) in patients with partial meniscal defects treated with PU meniscal scaffolds. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The proportion of patients who evaluated MS (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38-1.33; n.s.), SI (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.53-2.18; n.s.), and IIRMC (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33-3.06; n.s.) did not differ significantly between baseline and final follow-up. However, AC (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.84; P = 0.02) and AME (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.18; P < 0.00001) worsened between baseline and final follow-up. Conversely, Lysholm score (95% CI -1.87 to -1.07; P < 0.00001), IKDC score (95% CI -2.19 to -1.08; P < 0.00001), VAS for pain (95% CI -2.29 to -1.07; P < 0.00001), Tegner score (95% CI -0.76 to -0.15; P = 0.003), and overall KOOS (95% CI -29.48 to -23.17; P < 0.00001) were significantly greater at final follow-up when compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found no significant differences in the tested MRI parameters, including MS, SI, and IIRMC. However, AC and AME worsened between baseline and final follow-up. Conversely, patients treated with PU meniscal scaffolds showed significant functional improvement and pain relief when compared with baseline scores. Thus, PU meniscal scaffolds appear to be a viable alternative for patients with partial meniscal defects, although further studies are needed to determine whether worsened AC and AME are clinically relevant. In particular, precise measurement of PU meniscal scaffolds in combination with thorough investigation of the baseline articular cartilage status and meniscal defect size may be effective for pain relief or functional improvement in patients with PU meniscal scaffold implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Similar clinical outcomes following collagen or polyurethane meniscal scaffold implantation: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature in an effort to assess specific clinical outcomes following meniscal scaffold implantation using the two available scaffolds: Collagen Meniscal Implant (CMI) and the Actifit polyurethane meniscal scaffold. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to find studies evaluating clinical outcomes of patients undergoing meniscal scaffold implantation. Search terms used were "meniscus", "meniscal", "scaffold", and "implant". Studies were evaluated based on scaffold type, treatment failure rates, patient-reported outcome scores, concomitant procedures, and radiological findings. Radiological findings were recorded using the Genovese scale to assess morphology and signal intensity and the Yulish score to assess articular cartilage. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (1 level I, 1 level II, 17 level IV evidence) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 658 patients (347 Actifit, 311 CMI). The overall average follow-up was 45 months. Treatment failure occurred in 9.9% of patients receiving the Actifit scaffold at a mean follow-up of 40 months and 6.7% of patients receiving CMI at a mean follow-up of 44 months (n.s.). However, the rate of failure ranged from 0 to 31.8% amongst the included studies with a variable definition of failure. Additionally, overlapping patients and presence of concomitant surgeries such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) may have a significant influence on these results. Outcomes for the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Lysholm knee score, and Tegner activity score improved from preoperatively to latest follow-up in both groups, while the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and International Knee Documentation Committee scores improved from preoperatively to latest follow-up for Actifit scaffold patients. Overall, patients receiving CMI scaffolds had higher grades for Genovese morphology and signal intensity when compared to Actifit scaffold patients. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing meniscal scaffold implantation with either CMI or Actifit scaffold can both be expected to experience improvement in clinical outcomes when used in association with concomitant procedures such as ACLR and HTO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review.

Successful anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and meniscal repair in osteogenesis imperfecta.

A case of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with meniscal repair in an osteogenesis imperfecta patient is reported. A 24-year-old female with osteogenesis imperfecta type 1a suffered from a valgus extension injury resulting in tear of ACL and medial meniscus. She underwent an arthroscopic-assisted ACL reconstruction and medial meniscus repair. Meniscal tear at the menisco-capsular junction of the posterior horn of medial meniscus was repaired with three absorbable sutures via inside-out technique. ACL reconstruction was then performed with a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft. The patient was followed up for 1 year with intact ACL grafts and healed medial meniscus. This case report showed that successful ACL reconstruction and meniscal repair is possible in an osteogenesis imperfecta patient.Level of evidence V.