10-Year Survival and Clinical Improvement of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation in Early to Moderate Knee Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is a viable option for patients experiencing unicompartmental knee pain after total or subtotal meniscectomy. Nonetheless, caution is recommended when suggesting this procedure in the presence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) because of the higher risk of poor survival and outcomes. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to document the long-term survival of MAT performed as a salvage procedure in patients with knee OA. The hypothesis was that MAT would significantly reduce pain and increase the function of the affected joint at a long-term follow-up compared with the preoperative condition, with a low number of failures and knee replacement surgeries. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 47 patients (37 men and 10 women) with symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3) treated with MAT were evaluated at baseline, 5 years, and a minimum 10-year final follow-up (11.1 ± 1 years) using the Lysholm score, the visual analog scale for pain, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, and the Tegner score. A total of 44 patients had undergone previous surgeries. Patient satisfaction, revision surgeries, and failures were also recorded. RESULTS: A statistically significant improvement was observed in all clinical scores from the baseline assessment to the final follow-up. The Lysholm score improved significantly from 46.4 ± 17.2 at the preoperative assessment to 77.7 ± 20.4 at the intermediate follow-up (P < .001), with a significant decrease at the final follow-up (71 ± 23.3; P = .018). A similar trend was reported for the visual analog scale scale for pain, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Tegner score, with no complete recovery to the previous sports activity level. A total of 33 patients required concurrent procedures, such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions, osteotomies, and cartilage procedures. Five patients underwent reoperation and were considered surgical failures, while 15 patients presented a clinical condition of <65 of the Lysholm score and were considered clinical failures. Among these, 4 patients were considered both surgical and clinical failures. CONCLUSION: MAT surgery has proven to be a valid option for improving pain and function even in OA joints (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3), yielding satisfactory results despite a worsening clinical outcome in the long-term follow-up. Therefore, based on the data from this study, orthopaedic surgeons may consider recommending MAT as a salvage procedure even in knees affected by early to moderate OA, while advising patients that the need for combined interventions could potentially reduce graft survival.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Medial Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Combined With Realignment Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of medial meniscal allograft transplantation (MMAT) combined with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) compared with isolated MMAT remain unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and radiological results of MMAT combined with HTO and isolated MMAT. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This retrospective study included 42 consecutive patients, who were divided into group M (isolated MMAT; n = 22) and group H (MMAT combined with HTO with a varus angle >3°; n = 20). Group differences in subjective knee scores, isokinetic muscle strength test, and radiological outcomes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade, mechanical axis, graft extrusion, graft status, and articular cartilage loss) were compared. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 29.2 ± 4.9 months and 27.4 ± 5.3 months for groups M and H, respectively. The Lysholm score improved from 55.4 ± 9.5 to 81.3 ± 9.7 and from 52.6 ± 8.9 to 84.2 ± 10.2 in groups M and H, respectively (both P < .001). The International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score improved from 51.4 ± 10.3 to 79.6 ± 9.4 and from 49.3 ± 11.4 to 81.4 ± 8.3 in groups M and H, respectively (both P < .001). Both groups showed no significant differences in subjective knee scores and isokinetic extensor strength at the final follow-up. The rate of preoperative and postoperative high International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society grade (≥3) did not differ between the 2 groups. Group M showed greater coronal graft extrusion than did group H (3.3 ± 0.7 mm vs 2.7 ± 0.8 mm; P = .014); the rate of pathologic graft extrusion (≥3 mm) was not higher in group M (40.9%) than in group H (20%) with the number of patients available (P = .143). Both groups showed no significant difference in the graft status. Graft tears were observed in 2 patients (9%) in group M and 1 patient (5%) in group H (P = .607). CONCLUSION: Clinical scores significantly improved after isolated MMAT and MMAT combined with HTO compared with preoperative values, and their short-term outcomes were similar. Postoperative graft extrusion was greater in patients who underwent isolated MMAT, implying that active correction of varus alignment during MMAT may help in intra-articular biomechanics.

Meniscal Transplant surgery or Optimised Rehabilitation full randomised trial (MeTeOR2): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pain and disability after meniscectomy can be a substantial lifelong problem. There are few treatment options, especially for young people. Non-surgical management (rehabilitation) is an option but increasingly surgeons are performing meniscal allograft transplants (MATs) for these individuals. However, this is still an uncommon procedure, and availability and usage of MAT vary widely both in the UK and internationally. It is not known which treatment option is the most effective and cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Meniscal Transplant surgery or Optimised Rehabilitation trial is an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of MAT versus an optimised package of individualised, progressive, rehabilitation that we have called personalised knee therapy (PKT).Participants will be recruited from sites across the UK, Australia, Canada and Belgium. The planned 144 participants provide at least 90% power to detect a 10-point difference in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) at 24-months post randomisation (primary outcome). A prospectively planned economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including health utility, occupational status, sports participation, mental well-being, further treatment, and adverse events will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee on 19 August 2022 (22/LO/0327) and Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee, NSW, Australia on the 13 March 2023 (2022/ETH01890).Trial results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, in lay summaries and using social media as appropriate.This protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87336549.

Outcome comparison of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and meniscal scaffold implantation (MSI): a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although numerous studies have reported successful clinical outcomes of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) or meniscal scaffold implantation (MSI), the difference between the outcome of MAT and MSI remains unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the overall outcomes and survival rates of MAT and MSI, aiming to provide comprehensive evidence for determining the optimal treatment strategy for meniscal defects. METHODS: A systematic review was performed via a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies of MAT or MSI were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Lysholm score was chosen as the primary outcome measure, while secondary outcomes encompassed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), return to sports (RTS) rates, survival rates, and complication rates. The outcomes were stratified into two groups: MAT group and MSI group, followed by statistical comparison ( P <0.05). The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) assessment tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) for non-randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: A total of 3932 patients (2859 MAT, 1073 MSI) in 83 studies (51 MAT, 32 MSI) had the overall significant improvement in all clinical scores. The group MSI had a higher Lysholm score of both preoperative ( P =0.002) and postoperative ( P <0.001) than group MAT; however, the mean improvements were similar between the two groups ( P =0.105). Additionally, MSI had higher improvements of IKDC ( P <0.001), KOOS symptom ( P =0.010), KOOS pain ( P =0.036), and KOOS ADL ( P =0.004) than MAT. Interestingly, MAT had higher preoperative ( P =0.018) and less postoperative VAS pain ( P =0.006), which was more improved in MAT ( P <0.001). Compared with MAT, MSI had a higher 10-year survival rate ( P =0.034), a similar mid-term survival rate MAT ( P =0.964), and a lower complication rate ( P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Both MAT and MSI could have good clinical outcomes after surgery with a similar improvement in Lysholm score. MSI had a higher 10-year survival rate and fewer complications than MAT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review.

Clinical Outcomes of Medial Meniscal Allograft Transplantation With or Without High Tibial Osteotomy: A Case-Control Study Up to 8 Years of Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Satisfactory clinical results of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) have been reported in recent years. However, it remains unclear whether the clinical outcomes of MAT when combined with an osteotomy are inferior to those of isolated MAT. PURPOSE: To compare the survival rates and clinical outcomes of patients who received isolated medial MAT with those of patients undergoing medial MAT combined with high tibial osteotomy (HTO). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 55 patients underwent arthroscopic medial MAT using the soft tissue technique and HTO (mean age, 41.3 ± 10.4 years; 9 female); after fuzzy case-control matching on demographics, 55 controls who underwent isolated medial MAT were also included. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with surgical failure, clinical failure (Lysholm score, <65), and reoperation as endpoints. Subjective clinical scores were collected preoperatively and at the final follow-up. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 5.4 years, up to 8 years. All outcomes significantly improved at the last follow-up (P < .001). No differences were identified between MAT and MAT + HTO groups preoperatively and at the last follow-up (P > .05). At the final follow-up, 8 of 55 (14.5%) of the MAT + HTO patients and 9 of 55 (16.4%) of the MAT patients had a Lysholm score <65 (P = .885). Overall, 90% of the patients declared they would repeat the surgery regardless of the combined procedure. Surgical failure was identified in 6 of 110 (5.5%) patients: 5 of 55 (9.1%) in the MAT + HTO group and 1 of 55 (1.8%) in the MAT group (P = .093). Clinical failure was identified in 19 of 110 (17.3%) patients: 11 of 55 (20%) in the MAT + HTO group and 8 of 55 (14.5%) in the MAT group (P = .447). A significantly lower survivorship from surgical failure was identified in the MAT + HTO group (hazard ratio, 5.1; P = .049), while no differences in survivorship from reoperation and clinical failure were identified (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing medial MAT + HTO showed similar clinical results to patients undergoing isolated medial MAT at midterm follow-up, and thus a surgically addressed malalignment does not represent a contraindication for medial MAT. However, the need for a concomitant HTO is associated with a slightly higher failure rate over time.

Influence of Concomitant Meniscal Allograft Transplantation on Midterm Outcomes After Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation: A Comparative Matched-Pair Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCAT) is an accepted knee joint-preserving treatment strategy for focal osteochondral lesions that is often conducted in combination with meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). Despite its frequent and simultaneous utilization, there remains a lack in the literature reporting on outcomes and failure rates after concomitant procedures. PURPOSE: To determine (1) the midterm clinical success rate after OCAT+MAT in comparison with a matched-pair cohort undergoing isolated OCAT, (2) whether patient-specific and procedural variables influence the risk of failure, and (3) patient-reported outcome measures over time. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A single-center matched-pair cohort study was conducted investigating outcomes in patients who underwent OCAT of the medial or lateral femoral condyle with and without MAT between 2004 and 2020. Patients were matched 1:1 by age (±5 years), sex (male or female), body mass index (±5), and grouped Kellgren and Lawrence grade (grades 0-1 or 2-4). The minimum follow-up time was 2 years. Radiographic variables (International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society [ICRS] grade and Kellgren and Lawrence grade) were assessed preoperatively and at follow-up. Subjective patient-reported outcome measures (Lysholm score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] including subscores, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] score, and visual analog scale score) were collected preoperatively and at follow-up. Clinical failure was defined as revision surgery for graft failure or conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Patient-reported, clinical, and radiographic outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: In total, 66 patients (33 treated with isolated OCAT, 33 treated with OCAT+MAT; 57.6% male) with a mean age of 26.3 years (range, 18-62 years) were followed for a mean of 5.6 years (minimum, 2 years; range, 24-218 months). The 2 cohorts showed no difference in Kellgren and Lawrence grade postoperatively (P = .59). There was a significantly higher ICRS grade detected at follow-up in the OCAT+MAT group (2.81 ± 1.10) compared with the OCAT group (2.04 ± 0.96) (P < .05). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding reoperation rate (OCAT: n = 6; OCAT+MAT: n = 13; P = .116), time to reoperation (OCAT: 46.67 ± 47.27 months vs OCAT+MAT: 28.08 ± 30.16 months; P = .061), and failure rate (OCAT: n = 4 [12.1%] vs OCAT+MAT: n = 5 [15.2%]; P = .66). In the OCAT+MAT group, an increase of tibial slope by 1° conferred a 1.65-fold increase in the hazard for failure over decreased slope (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.10-2.50; P < .05). The overall survival rate was 86% at a mean follow-up of 5.6 years. Patient-reported outcome scores were significantly improved at the final follow-up compared with preoperative status. No significant differences were seen between groups with respect to subjective IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner, and KOOS results, except for the KOOS Symptoms subscale score, which was significantly higher in the OCAT+MAT group than in the OCAT group (mean difference, 14.6; P < .05) and did exceed the minimal clinically important difference threshold of 10.7. CONCLUSION: Midterm results after isolated OCAT and OCAT+MAT show high rates of healing and sustainable subjective improvement of knee function and quality of life. However, it should be noted that the difference in reoperation rate and time to reoperation between the groups is arguably clinically important and that lack of statistical significance may be because of low power. These results imply that isolated OCAT is an efficient joint-preserving treatment that can be combined with MAT in well-selected patients with meniscal insufficiency without negative influence on global clinical outcomes.

Correlation between articular cartilage status on outcomes and survivorship following meniscal allograft transplantation: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review evaluating potential correlations between preoperative articular cartilage integrity on outcomes and survivorship in patients undergoing meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). METHODS: A literature search was performed by querying SCOPUS, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials from database inception through May 2023 according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. Inclusion criteria were limited to studies reporting on outcomes and survivorship following MAT based on preoperative cartilage status. RESULTS: Sixteen studies, consisting of 1723 patients (n = 1758 total menisci), were identified in six level III and 10 level IV evidence studies. There was high heterogeneity in cartilage grading scales, reporting of concomitant cartilage procedures, and indications for MAT based on osteoarthritis. Patients with lower limb malalignment were either excluded or corrected with an osteotomy. MAT failure rate was reported in nine studies, with four studies reporting a greater rate of failure in knees with higher degrees of cartilage damage. Eight studies reported on clinical outcomes based on cartilage grade, with two studies reporting significant differences in clinical outcomes based on cartilage grade. Of the five studies reporting management of full-thickness chondral defects with cartilage surgery, three studies reported no significant difference in survivorship based on preoperative cartilage grade, while one study reported lower survivorship and one study reported unclear results. No studies found significant differences in survivorship and outcomes between medial and lateral MAT. CONCLUSIONS: Conflicting results and high variability in reporting of concomitant cartilage repair and indications for MAT exist in studies evaluating the efficacy of MAT based on articular cartilage status. The degree of preoperative chondral damage did not have a strong relationship with clinical outcomes following MAT. Higher degrees of cartilage damage were associated with higher MAT failure rates, with possible improvement in survivorship when treated with an appropriate cartilage procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Accelerated versus Standard Rehabilitation after Meniscus Allograft Transplantation in the Knee.

Meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) is a proven treatment option for patients with symptomatic irreparable meniscus deficiency. When patients are adherent to prescribed postoperative restriction and rehabilitation protocols, outcomes after MAT are considered good to excellent. However, nonadherence to standard protocols is common and can be associated with undesirable outcomes and patient dissatisfaction. Based on demonstrated safety for early weight-bearing following MAT in conjunction with significant advances in graft preservation and surgical techniques, our joint preservation center implemented a shift in practice toward accelerated weight-bearing following MAT and designed this study to test the hypothesis that accelerated rehabilitation would be associated with superior adherence, patient-reported outcomes, and patient satisfaction, without diminishing patient safety, when compared with standard rehabilitation. Patients were included for analyses when they had undergone fresh or fresh-frozen MAT using a double bone plug technique for treatment of medial or lateral meniscus deficiency and had at least 1-year treatment outcomes recorded. The results of this study revealed that patients who were prescribed accelerated rehabilitation after MAT were significantly more adherent than patients who were prescribed standard rehabilitation and reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in knee pain and function for at least 1-year following MAT, whereas those in the standard cohort did not. While not statistically different, treatment failure rate was lower in the accelerated rehabilitation cohort when compared with the standard rehabilitation cohort (11 vs. 29%). Importantly, initial outcomes for revision MAT were associated with short-term success in all the patients who opted for this option in the study population. These data suggest that accelerated weight-bearing after MAT is safe, promotes patient adherence, and is associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported knee pain and function at early and mid-term follow-up.

Editorial Commentary: Tissue-Engineered Meniscal Scaffolds and Implants Show Promising Short-Term Outcomes While Long-Term Comparison With Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Is Pending.

Because of the prevalence of meniscal injuries and the difficulty treating irreparable tears and large defects, there has been increasing research and resultant engineering strategies over the past 20 years that have resulted in development of various meniscal scaffolds and meniscal implants. At this time, meniscal allograft transplant may be the "standard" consideration for the nonarthritis, meniscal deficient, stable, and properly aligned painful knee, but challenges include availability, preoperative planning and sizing, costs, and logistics. Newer tissue-engineered implants can minimize these concerns, and recent systematic review shows these may provide short-term improvement in knee pain and function. However, studies demonstrating long-term improvements remain pending, and it is unclear whether these implants will result in outcomes better than meniscal allograft transplant.

Editorial Commentary: Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Results in Both Pain Relief and Chondroprotection.

Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) effectively alleviates symptoms of the meniscus deficiency. Thus, MAT is a widely accepted and recommended treatment for individuals with unicompartmental pain due to meniscus deficiency. Long-term follow-up studies have indicated that MAT yields favorable clinical outcomes, demonstrating high survivorship and low rates of serious complications. In addition, the ability of MAT to function akin to the native meniscus and shield the knee cartilage from osteoarthritis has been a subject of ongoing investigation, and recent direct magnetic resonance imaging evidence shows long-term chondroprotection following MAT. Cartilage lesions worsen during the meniscus deficiency period. Consequently, delaying MAT until patients become more symptomatic may lead to poor outcomes and low graft survivorship due to concomitant cartilage lesions. These findings prompt a reevaluation of the purpose and timing of MAT decisions for meniscectomy patients, suggesting a more proactive approach to recommending MAT, particularly for patients at high risk of postmeniscectomy syndrome and osteoarthritis progression.

Editorial Commentary: High-Grade Cartilage Lesions Require Treatment to Prevent Meniscal Allograft Transplant Failure.

In patients with symptomatic high loss of meniscal volume and function due to irreparable tears, meniscal allograft transplantation may result in symptom relief and ideally prevent long-term consequences of articular cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis. However, the degree of cartilage damage at the time of meniscal allograft transplantation is associated with graft failure, and untreated high-grade cartilage lesions increase the risk. Correction of femorotibial malalignment is also essential.

Fresh Versus Frozen Meniscal Allograft Transplant: Revisit or Redundant? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Fresh-frozen allografts are the current standard in meniscal allograft transplant (MAT) surgery, due to their availability, ease of preservation, and affordability. However, fresh-frozen grafts are associated with several clinical challenges such as graft shrinkage and extrusion, among many others. PURPOSE: To present the current knowledge on the use of fresh meniscal allografts, presenting whether benefits associated with fresh grafts provide sufficient evidence to support their use in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 5. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted with keywords listed below. After an initial screening on title and abstract, full-text articles were assessed with the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 78 studies matched the inclusion criteria. Literature and preclinical studies indicated that fresh meniscal allografts are beneficial for maintaining mechanical properties, graft ultrastructure, and matrix metabolism due to the presence of viable cells. Therefore, fresh allografts may address common complications associated with fresh-frozen MAT. To overcome challenges associated with both fresh-frozen and fresh allografts, a group has studied treating fresh-frozen allografts with a cell-based injection therapy. CONCLUSION: Fresh meniscal allografts pose several challenges including limited availability, demanding preservation procedures, and high costs. Although the role of viable cells within meniscal allografts remains controversial, these cells may be vital for maintaining tissue properties.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Is Effective for Adolescents With Meniscal Insufficiency, Although Outcomes May Decline Over Time.

Over the last several years, there has been a shift from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to meniscal repair, especially in the younger patient. In case of a necessary partial meniscectomy, some patients have unremittent symptoms of pain and effusion corresponding to the postmeniscectomy syndrome. In these patients without large coronal malalignment, meniscal allograft transplantation is a valuable option to restore contact pressures, promote a chondroprotective microenvironment, and potentially delay secondary surgical interventions symptoms. In the adolescent population, meniscal allograft transplantation has been shown to effectively improve patient-reported outcomes with a low conversion to arthroplasty. However, these treatments are far from ideal, and prevention is certainly better than the cure: timely diagnosis of meniscus injuries, appropriate treatment with meniscus repair rather than partial meniscectomy, even in the complex tear patterns, and consideration of corrective osteotomy for milder cases of malalignment.

Survivorship of 157 Arthroscopic Meniscal Allograft Transplants Using Bone Fixation at a Mean of 7 Years and Prognostic Factors Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is an accepted and effective treatment option in the context of unsalvageable menisci, particularly in young and active patients. It has been shown to reduce pain and improve knee function in previously symptomatic patients. However, there is still limited knowledge about the long-term survival rates of allografts, the durability of clinical results, and the influence of patient-specific parameters, such as leg alignment, tibial slope, and preoperative International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society (ICRS) grade. PURPOSE: To determine (1) the long-term clinical success rate after MAT with bony fixation in a large, single-center cohort of consecutive patients, and (2) if patient-specific and procedural variables influence the clinical, anatomic, and subjective outcomes and risk of failure. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data on 185 consecutive knees undergoing MAT in a single institution were prospectively collected and screened for inclusion in this study. The minimum follow-up time was 2 years. Radiographic variables (ICRS grade and Kellgren-Lawrence grade) were assessed preoperatively and at follow-up. Subjective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Lysholm score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] including subscores, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] score, and visual analog scale [VAS] score) were collected preoperatively and at follow-up. Clinical failure was defined as revision surgery due to graft failure or conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Anatomic failure was considered a tear covering >20% of the allograft, any peripheral tear, and unstable peripheral fixation leading to dislocation of the graft. Subjective failure was defined as Lysholm score ≤65. Preoperative tibial slope and leg alignment were assessed. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier estimate. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors for clinical and anatomic failure. RESULTS: A total of 157 knees met inclusion criteria. After a mean follow-up time of 7 ± 3.5 years, 127 (80.9%) knees were free of clinical, anatomic, and subjective failure. Fourteen (8.9%) knees experienced clinical failure, 26 (16.6%) knees were identified as having experienced anatomic failure, and 13 (8.3%) patients experienced subjective failure with a reported Lysholm score of ≤65 at a mean follow-up of 7 years. Concurrent osteochondral allograft transplantation was identified as a predictor of both clinical (hazard ratio [HR], 4.55; 95% CI, 1.46-14.17; P = .009) and anatomic (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.34-6.92; P = .008) failure. Cartilage damage of ICRS grade 3 or 4 of the index compartment conveyed an increased risk for clinical (HR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.05-11.01; P = .04) and anatomic (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01) failure. High-grade cartilage damage preoperatively (HR, 10.67; 95% CI, 1.037-109.768; P = .046), patient age >25 years (HR, 5.44; 95% CI, 0.120-246.070; P = .384), and a body mass index >30 (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 0.748-6.705; P = .149) were associated with subjective failure. PROMs including KOOS and IKDC were significantly improved at final follow-up compared with preoperative scores across all measurements (P < .005). CONCLUSION: MAT showed good to excellent clinical results at a mean follow-up of 7 years. Low ICRS lesion grade was associated with a higher clinical and anatomic survival rate. Patients with concurrent OCA transplantation are at a higher risk of clinical and anatomic failure, but still report significantly improved PROMs. These results suggest that MAT has a lasting beneficial effect both in isolation and in complex cases with ≥1 concurrent procedures.

Risk Factor for Clinical Failure of Medial Meniscal Allograft Transplant: Early vs Late Graft Tear.

BACKGROUND: Graft tears are common postoperative findings in meniscal allograft transplant (MAT). Graft tear in medial MAT may be different from that of lateral MAT, considering the difference between medial meniscal tears and lateral meniscal tears. Moreover, medial MAT is frequently accompanied by ligament reconstruction, which is associated with graft tear. The effect of graft tear on the long-term survivorship of medial MAT has not been investigated. HYPOTHESIS: Graft tear would adversely affect the survivorship of medial MAT and the effect would be different according to the timing of graft tear. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 55 patients undergoing medial MAT between June 2019 and March 2000 were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were reviewed to identify graft tears, and the timing of their occurrence was investigated. Postoperative MRI was performed routinely during the first postoperative year and every 2 years thereafter. The patients were classified into a no graft tear (NT) group, early graft tear (occurring within 1 year; ET) group, and late graft tear (occurring 1 year after surgery; LT) group. The survival rate of medial MAT was estimated according to graft tear, with a failure being defined as (1) reoperations including arthroplasty, realignment osteotomy, revision MAT, and meniscectomy (>50% of the graft or to the zone of the meniscocapsular junction) or (2) Lysholm score <65. Clinical scores were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration was 8.6 ± 5.3 years. During that period, clinical failures occurred in 6 (10.9%) patients. The overall survival rate at 5 years was 94.0% (95% CI, 90.6%-97.4%). Graft tears were seen in 18 patients: 6 patients in the ET group and 12 patients in the LT group. The median time when the graft tear was noted on MRI scans was 5.5 months (range, 1-11 months) postoperatively in the ET group and 99.5 months (range, 19-264 months) postoperatively in the LT group. Five patients in the ET group had root tears, whereas 9 patients in the LT group had complex or horizontal tears. The 5-year survival rate of the ET group was 62.5% (95% CI, 41.2%-83.8%), which was significantly lower than that of the NT group (96.8%; 95% CI, 93.6%-99.9%) and the LT group (85.7%; 95% CI, 72.5%-98.9%; P = .002). The mean postoperative Lysholm scores were 85.6 ± 17.9 in the NT group, 93.0 ± 2.8 in the ET group, and 79.3 ± 11.6 in the LT group, showing no significant difference between the groups (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = .058). CONCLUSION: Clinical relevance of graft tear that occurred after medial MAT was dependent upon its timing. ET was a risk factor for clinical failure, whereas LT did not adversely affect graft survivorship. Lysholm scores did not differ according to graft tear.

Editorial Commentary: Revision Meniscal Allograft Transplantation is a Bridge Option for Appropriately Indicated Patients With Realistic Patient Expectations in the Hands of Experienced Knee Surgeons Able to Perform All Necessary Concomitant Procedures.

Primary meniscal allograft transplantation (PMAT) is an effective yet sometimes short-term solution to postmeniscectomy syndrome. Survivorship beyond 10 years can carry a guarded prognosis. Alternatives after failure of PMAT are typically total or unicompartmental arthroplasty, which, depending on desired activity level, can be reasonable options for older patients. However, when faced with younger, otherwise healthy patients, revision meniscal allograft transplantation (RMAT) shows outcomes in appropriately indicated patients when concomitant pathology is also addressed. Patient expectations must be tempered (i.e., they should not expect to achieve an International Knee Documentation Committee score of 70 to 100, but rather 40 to 70 meaning that a patient can function reasonably well in activities of daily living). Thus RMAT is a viable "salvage" or "bridge" option in the hands of experienced high-volume knee surgeons (to ensure meticulous surgical technique and the ability to perform all necessary concomitant procedures). Patients must have appropriate expectations and be appropriately indicated.

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.

Revision and Primary Meniscal Allograft Transplantations Provide Clinical Benefit at Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Matched-Cohort Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes, Reoperations, and Failures.

PURPOSE: To report the mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent revision meniscal allograft transplantation (RMAT) and compare survivorship free from reoperation and failure with a matched cohort of patients who underwent primary meniscal allograft transplantation (PMAT). METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data identified patients who underwent RMAT and PMAT between 1999 and 2017. A cohort of PMAT patients matched at a ratio of 2:1 with respect to age, body mass index, sex, and concomitant procedures served as the control group. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline and at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively were collected. PROMs and the achievement of clinically significant outcomes were analyzed within groups. Graft survivorship free from meniscal reoperation and failure (arthroplasty or subsequent RMAT) was compared between cohorts using log-rank testing. RESULTS: During the study period, 22 RMATs were performed in 22 patients. Of these RMAT patients, 16 met the inclusion criteria (73% follow-up rate). The mean age of RMAT patients was 29.7 ± 9.3 years, and the mean follow-up period was 9.9 ± 4.2 years (range, 5.4-16.8 years). There were no differences between the RMAT cohort and the 32 matched PMAT patients with respect to age (P = .292), body mass index (P = .623), sex (P = .537), concomitant procedures (P ≥ .286), or baseline PROMs (P ≥ .066). The patient acceptable symptomatic state was achieved by the RMAT cohort for the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score (70%), Lysholm score (38%), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales (Pain [73%], Symptoms [64%], Sport [45%], Activities of Daily Living [55%], and Quality of Life [36%]). In the RMAT cohort, 5 patients (31%) underwent subsequent reoperation at a mean of 4.7 ± 2.1 years (range, 1.7-6.7 years) and 5 patients met the criteria for failure at a mean of 4.9 ± 2.9 years (range, 1.2-8.4 years). There were no significant differences in survivorship free from reoperation (P = .735) or failure (P = .170) between the RMAT and PMAT cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: At mid-term follow-up, most patients who underwent RMAT achieved the patient acceptable symptomatic state for the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales of Pain, Symptoms, and Activities of Daily Living. Additionally, there were no differences in survival free from meniscal reoperation or failure between the PMAT and RMAT cohorts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative cohort.

Meniscal allograft transplantation improves patient-reported outcomes in both minimal and moderate knee osteoarthritis at 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

PURPOSE: Severe cartilage damage and advanced knee osteoarthritis (OA) might be associated with poor outcomes of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). The purpose of this prospective follow-up study was to explore MAT survivorship and patient satisfaction among young patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency and radiological OA of different Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grades. METHODS: Thirty-five consecutive MAT patients were prospectively followed up for 2 years. The lateral meniscus was replaced in 29 patients and the medial meniscus in 6 patients. Outcomes were assessed using the KOOS4 composite score, KOOS subscales, Lysholm knee score, and OA K-L grade progression from weight-bearing knee radiographs. For the outcome analysis, patients were categorized into two groups: 19 in Group A (K-L classification 0-1) and 16 in Group B (K-L classification 2). RESULTS: In terms of KOOS4 and Lysholm scores, the patients showed a clinically significant improvement from baseline to the 1-year follow-up (22.2 points, 95% CI 16.6-27.8 for KOOS4 and 16.8 points, 95% CI 8.9-24.6 for Lysholm), and the improvement remained at 2 years (20.6 points, 95% CI 13.2-28.1 for KOOS4 and 21.5, 95% CI 12.5-30.7 for Lysholm). At the 6-month follow-up, this improvement was not yet observed. Minor between-group differences were observed in the KOOS4 and Lysholm scores for the K-L 0-1 and K-L 2 OA groups, but the estimates were imprecise with wide confidence intervals. A clinically relevant difference between these two study groups could not be found at any timepoint. The reoperation rate was higher in the K-L 2 group than in the K-L 0-1 group (31% vs. 11%). CONCLUSIONS: MAT yielded improved patient-reported outcomes and subjective satisfaction at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. The differences from baseline exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at all timepoints. The severity of cartilage damage and knee OA in terms of the K-L grade at the time of surgery did not affect the KOOS and Lysholm scores after the MAT procedure. Knee OA progression in terms of K-L grade worsening was not observed in any patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.