Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) combined with revision ACL reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tenodesis results in significantly improved outcomes, but patient-reported knee function is inferior compared to an isolated MAT.

PURPOSE: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is a valuable option for postmeniscectomy syndrome in young and active patients, which can successfully improve symptoms, function and quality of life. This study aimed to report outcomes and complications in patients treated with isolated MAT or MAT combined with revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET). METHODS: In total, 18 patients who were treated with MAT using a soft tissue fixation technique were retrospectively analysed. Patients were allocated into two groups, the isolated MAT group and the MAT plus revision ACLR + LET group (MAT+ group). Both groups were assessed using the following Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner Activity Scale, Lysholm score, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) statement. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 3.2 years and the mean age of patients was 29 (±7.6) years. Ten patients were treated with isolated MAT and eight patients were treated with MAT combined with revision ACLR and LET. No complications and no reoperations were reported. In both groups, all PROMs significantly improved postoperatively (p < 0.05), except for the Tegner score in the MAT+ group, which did not reach statistical significance (not significant [n.s.]). No significant difference was found postoperatively in PROMs between the MAT and the MAT+ group; however, differences in the KOOS Symptoms, Sports and Quality-of-life subscales reached the minimal clinically important threshold. Mean values were: IKDC 61.2 (±13.9) versus 64.7 (±23.2), KOOS Total 72.8 (±14.9) versus 68.0 (±16.7), Lysholm score 83.2 (±11) versus 84.2 (±8.7) and EQ-5D-5L 71.8 (±14.9) versus 72.2 (±22.4). Median values for the Tegner Activity Scale were 4 versus 3. PASS statement was negative in 37.5% of the MAT+ group in comparison to 20% of the MAT group (n.s.). CONCLUSION: In terms of patient-reported outcomes, MAT is an effective and safe procedure, even when combined with revision ACLR + LET. Compared to the preoperative assessment, a significant improvement of the postoperative PROMs can be expected either when MAT is performed isolated or in combination with ACLR + LET. However, clinically important differences between the two groups can be noted in favour of the isolated MAT procedure, especially regarding symptoms and sporting activity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Satisfactory patient-reported outcomes in patients treated with impaction bone grafting and autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis for osteochondral knee defects.

PURPOSE: Osteochondral knee defects usually affect young, active patients and may alter knee biomechanics and progressively lead to joint degeneration. Various treatment options exist with autologous, impaction bone grafting in combination with autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (BG-AMIC) being a less-expensive, one-step, promising option. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological mid-term outcomes of large osteochondral lesions treated with BG-AMIC, identify a possible correlation between the two and report postoperative complications and reoperation rate. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 25 patients treated with the BG-AMIC technique for knee osteochondral lesions was performed. Patients were assessed using the following PROMs: the IKDC, the KOOS and the Lysholm score, the Tegner activity scale and a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). The EQ-5D-5L score was used to assess health-related quality of life. Radiological assessment was performed using the MOCART 2.0 score on a 3 T MRI. RESULTS: At a mean of 3.8 (± 0.8)-year follow-up, all functional scores increased significantly (p < 0.005) when compared to the preoperative baseline. IKDC increased from 44.5 (± 15.9) to 81.4 (± 14.7), KOOS from 41.5 (± 16.1) to 91.6 (± 11.6) and Lysholm from 54.4 (± 23) to 95.2 (± 5.5) (p < 0.005). The EQ-5D-5L score also revealed a significant improvement [59.9 (± 25) to 93.4 (± 10.2), p < 0.005]. Mean Tegner score reached pre-injury levels. The PASS was positive in 100% of patients. The minimum clinically important difference was reached in all PROMs except for the KOOS Sports subscale. There were no re-operations. Morphological evaluation of the repair tissue using the MOCART 2.0 score revealed a mean total score of 52.8 (± 30.5). A statistically significant, positive correlation was found between the MOCART 2.0 score and the IKDC score, the KOOS ADL subscale and the EQ-5D-5L (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: BG-AMIC is a safe and reliable option for treating deep, knee osteochondral lesions, providing a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in patient-reported outcomes. No complications were noticed, and no re-operations were performed after the procedure. A moderate positive correlation between the MOCART 2.0 score and the IKDC, KOOS ADL and EQ-5D-5L was noticed. However, this correlation is not necessarily clinically relevant, and excellent clinical results can be expected even in patients with low MOCART scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Nationwide Survey in Greece about Knowledge, Risk Perceptions, and Preventive Behaviors for COVID-19 during the General Lockdown in April 2020.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of the Greek general population toward coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the lockdown period in April 2020, to examine factors associated with misperceptions and to determine behavioral patterns that may require interventions. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of the general Greek population (N = 1858) was conducted. A geographically stratified cluster sampling was implemented. A questionnaire was composed consisting of 35 questions. Data collection took place from 15 April to 2 May 2020. A random-digit dialing survey was conducted by 29 interviewers. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (62.7%) answered ≥12/17 questions correctly. Participants aged 18-44 years, male gender, specific occupations (freelancer, unemployed, housewife, retiree) and those who sought information about COVID-19 from less than two sources received lower aggregated scores on knowledge questions. Regarding attitudes toward future vaccination, 18.9% declared that were against it, while 81.1% that they may consider or will be vaccinated. About 40% were not using a face mask and only 42% washed their hands appropriately. CONCLUSION: Adjusting information campaigns targeting especially people below 45 years of age can help to sensitize them and realise their role to control the spread. Further targeted surveys are needed to adjust/design prevention campaigns.