Utility of Stability and Tear Location in a Classification System for Discoid Meniscus Surgical Planning.

BACKGROUND: Despite the presence of multiple classification systems for discoid meniscus, no system has yet to demonstrate utility in predicting the need for meniscal repair. The purpose of this study was to correlate characteristics associated with meniscal repair and propose a model that can inform preoperative planning and initial counseling of surgical plans and expectations. METHODS: Medical and operative records of 434 knees with lateral discoid meniscus in children and adolescents treated between 1991 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively to determine the surgical procedure performed (saucerization with or without meniscal repair), discoid meniscal morphology and stability, and location and type of any associated tear. Univariate associations between discoid meniscal characteristics and surgery type were calculated and a logistic regression model of surgery type was generated. RESULTS: In univariate models, unstable menisci (93%, or 179/204, P<0.001) and menisci with tears extending peripherally (75%, or 85/204, P<0.001) were more likely to receive surgery with repair. In isolation, instability demonstrated 89% sensitivity and 94% specificity in predicting surgery with repair. A logistic regression model including stability, tear, and their interaction (stability×tear) showed that that the odds of unstable lateral discoid menisci receiving surgery with repair was 114 times higher than stable menisci (P<0.001) while lateral discoid menisci with peripherally extending tears had 6.4 times higher odds of receiving repair than those that had an isolated central tear (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Stability and tear location of lateral discoid menisci were associated with surgical treatment in univariate and logistic regression models. The proposed classification system, in which menisci are classified by stability [Stable (S0), Unstable (S1), morphology (Incomplete (M0), Complete (M1))], and tear [No tear (T0), Central tear, isolated (T1), or Central tear, peripheral extension (T2)], is easily remembered and predicts surgical repair for discoid menisci. This scheme can serve to inform preoperative planning and initial counseling of primary surgical management and postoperative expectations. Subsequent research should develop a system that predicts meniscal survival and patient outcomes following the index operation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Surgical Management of Medial Discoid Meniscus in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients.

BACKGROUND: Medial discoid meniscus (MDM) is an exceedingly rare anatomic abnormality that presents similarly to other meniscal pathologies. Symptomatic MDM is typically managed arthroscopically with mixed short-term and long-term outcomes, although the existing knowledge about MDM is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe the presentation and surgical treatment of MDM in pediatric and adolescent patients. METHODS: Medical records of 12 knees with MDM in 8 pediatric and adolescent patients treated between 1991 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively for patient characteristics, clinical manifestations, radiographic findings, operative techniques, and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 446 knees diagnosed arthroscopically with discoid menisci, lateral discoid meniscus was noted in 434 knees (97.3%) and MDM was present in 12 knees (2.7%). The MDM series included 8 patients of mean age 13.8 years (range: 7.8 to 19.8), of which 5 were males (63%), and 4 (50%) had bilateral involvement. Of the 11 knees with available clinical records, all cases presented symptomatically (pain, mechanical symptoms); 10 (91%) had concurrent physical exam findings. On intraoperative examination, discoid morphologies were described as complete in 4/8 knees (50%) or incomplete in 4/8 (50%), with associated instability in 6/12 (50%). Meniscal tears were reported in 9 cases (75%)-primarily, horizontal cleavage tears. Saucerization was performed in 11 knees (92%), with medial meniscal repair in 7 (58%), when indicated. Retear of the medial meniscus occurred in 4/11 knees (36%) at a mean of 25.8 months postoperation; 2 knees required revisions. One knee developed arthrofibrosis and underwent arthroscopic lysis of adhesions. CONCLUSIONS: MDM is a rare diagnosis, representing 3% of all discoid menisci, with a nonspecific clinical manifestation. Operative management of symptomatic MDM typically involves saucerization and meniscal repair, when indicated, for concurrent tears. Symptom resolution is common short-term, but long-term outcomes include recurrent meniscal tears. Subsequent observational studies are important to evaluate long-term outcomes, such as arthritic changes, with the advancement of arthroscopic techniques for meniscal preservation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-retrospective case series.

Symptomatic Discoid Meniscus in Children and Adolescents: A Review of 470 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Discoid meniscus is a congenital variant, typically involving the lateral meniscus, that comprises a spectrum of meniscal shapes and degrees of instability in an estimated 1% to 15% of the population. The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical and operative course of a large cohort of children and adolescents patients with symptomatic lateral discoid meniscus. METHODS: Medical records of 470 knees with symptomatic lateral discoid meniscus in 401 patients ages 18 years or younger diagnosed at a single institution between 1991 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively for patient characteristics, treatment course (nonoperative and/or operative), and complications. Surgical reports were reviewed in the operative group. RESULTS: The series included 401 patients of mean age 11.6 years (range: 1 mo-18.9 y), of which 222 (55%) were female, and 69 (17%) had bilateral involvement. Of 470 knees, 83 (18%) were initially managed nonoperatively. Of these, 32 knees (39%) failed nonoperative management and were converted to surgical treatment at a median of 7.9 months (interquartile range: 4.0-15.1). In total, 419 knees were managed surgically with saucerization (partial meniscectomy) with or without meniscal repair/stabilization; 84 knees (20%) required at least one concurrent nonmeniscal procedure. Discoid meniscus tears were reported in 264/419 knees (63%) intraoperatively; horizontal cleavage tears were most common. Reoperation was required for 66/379 cases (17%) with clinical follow-up, at a median of 19.6 months (range: 9.2-34.9) after index saucerization; 60/379 cases (16%) had ongoing pain and/or mechanical symptoms at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: With a failure rate of 39% (32/83 knees), nonoperative management for discoid lateral meniscus frequently convert to surgical treatment. During surgery, meniscus tearing and instability are common and should be anticipated. Postoperatively, 33% (126/379) of knees with clinical follow-up underwent either reoperation, or had ongoing symptoms of the knee at final follow-up. Discoid mensical retear is the most common complication (94%, 62/66) prompting repeat surgery, and should be discussed with families before the index operation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-descriptive case series.

Long-term Minimum 15-Year Follow-up After Lateral Discoid Meniscus Rim Preservation Surgery in Children and Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Discoid meniscus is a congenital variant typically affecting the lateral meniscus of the knee. Historically, surgical intervention when symptomatic consisted of total meniscectomy; however, after degenerative changes were observed, current treatments now focus on rim preservation with arthroscopic saucerization and meniscal repair for instability, when indicated. The purpose of our study was to examine long-term patient-reported outcomes of lateral discoid meniscus (LDM) treated with meniscal-preserving techniques. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients treated arthroscopically for LDM at a single institution at a minimum of 15 years ago were retrospectively identified and contacted by mailers and telephone to participate. Subjective functional outcomes and patient satisfaction data were collected using a questionnaire that included the validated International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Lysholm Score, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Tegner Activity Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index Osteoarthritis Index. Patient and surgical characteristics and patient-reported outcomes were summarized by mean and SD, median and interquartile range (interquartile range), or frequency and percent, as appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 46 patients contacted (response rate of 46/98 eligible), 25 (54%) completed the questionnaires. The mean (±SD) age at initial surgery was 10.8 (±3.4) and 30.3 (±3.7) years at final follow-up. The mean (±SD) follow-up time from initial surgery was 19.5 (±2.8) years (range, 16 to 27). Patient-reported outcomes included: International Knee Documentation Committee 77.4±17.2, Lysholm 78.6±21, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index 7.6±11.3, Tegner Activity 7 (of 10), and Marx Activity Rating Scale 8 (of 10). Eleven (44%) cases underwent subsequent LDM-related surgery on the ipsilateral knee(s). There were no cases of total knee replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patient-reported outcomes were favorable at a minimum of 15-year follow-up after rim-preserving saucerization of LDM. While two thirds of patients were satisfied with their surgical outcomes, nearly half of patients underwent revision saucerization with or without meniscal repair. Subsequent long-term follow-up studies with objective outcome measures are important to further elucidate the natural history of LDM and understand how rim-preserving procedures may prevent the development of degenerative processes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-case series, prognostic study.