Background: A novel, biodegradable, polyurethane scaffold was designed to fulfill an unmet clinical need in the treatment of patients with painful irreparable partial meniscal defects.
Hypothesis: The use of an acellular polyurethane scaffold for new tissue generation in irreparable partial meniscal defects provides both pain relief and improved functionality.
Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods: Fifty-two patients with irreparable partial meniscal defects (34 medial and 18 lateral, 88% with 1-3 previous surgeries on the index meniscus) were implanted with a polyurethane scaffold in a prospective, single-arm, multicenter, proof-of-principle study. Safety was assessed by the rate of scaffold-related serious adverse events (SAEs) and the International Cartilage Repair Society articular cartilage scoring system comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 24 months to MRI at baseline (1 week). Kaplan-Meier time to treatment failure distributions were performed. Clinical outcomes were measured comparing visual analog scale, International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Lysholm scores at 24 months from baseline (entry into study).
Results: Clinically and statistically significant improvements (P < .0001) compared with baseline were reported in all clinical outcome scores (baseline/24 months): visual analog scale (45.7/20.3), International Knee Documentation Committee (45.4/70.1), KOOS symptoms (64.6/78.3), KOOS pain (57.5/78.6), KOOS activities of daily living (68.8/84.2), KOOS sports (30.5/59.0), KOOS quality of life (33.9/56.6), and Lysholm (60.1/80.7), demonstrating improvements in both pain and function. The incidence of treatment failure was 9 (17.3%) patients, of which 3 patients (8.8%) had medial meniscal defects and 6 patients (33.3%) had lateral meniscal defects. There were 9 SAEs requiring reoperation. Stable or improved International Cartilage Repair Society cartilage grades were observed in 92.5% of patients between baseline and 24 months.
Conclusion: At 2 years after implantation, safety and clinical outcome data from this study support the use of the polyurethane scaffold for the treatment of irreparable, painful, partial meniscal defects.
Background: Loss of meniscal tissue can be responsible for increased pain and decreased function.
Hypothesis: At a minimum 10-year follow-up, patients receiving a medial collagen meniscus implant (MCMI) would show better clinical, radiological, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes than patients treated with partial medial meniscectomy (PMM).
Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence 2.
Methods: Thirty-three nonconsecutive patients (men; mean age, 40 years) with meniscal injuries were enrolled in the study to receive MCMI or to serve as a control patient treated with PMM. The choice of treatment was decided by the patient. All patients were clinically evaluated at time 0 and at 5 years and a minimum of 10 years after surgery (mean follow-up, 133 months) by Lysholm, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) knee form, and Tegner activity level scores. The SF-36 score was performed preoperatively and at final follow-up. Bilateral weightbearing radiographs were completed before the index surgery and at final follow-up. Minimum 10-year follow-up MRI images were compared with preoperative MRI images by means of the Yulish score. The Genovese score was also used to evalute MCMI MRI survivorship.
Results: The MCMI group, compared with the PMM one, showed significantly lower VAS for pain (1.2 ± 0.9 vs 3.3 ± 1.8; P = .004) and higher objective IKDC (7A and 10B for MCMI, 4B and 12C for PMM; P = .0001), Teger index (75 ± 27.5 vs 50 ± 11.67; P = .026), and SF-36 (53.9 ± 4.0 vs 44.1 ± 9.2; P = .026 for Physical Health Index; 54.7 ± 3.8 vs 43.8 ± 6.5; P = .004 for Mental Health Index) scores. Radiographic evaluation showed significantly less medial joint space narrowing in the MCMI group than in the PMM group (0.48 ± 0.63 mm vs 2.13 ± 0.79 mm; P = .0003). No significant differences between groups were reported regarding Lysholm (P = .062) and Yulish (P = .122) scores. Genovese score remained constant between 5 and 10 years after surgery (P = .5). The MRI evaluation of the MCMI patients revealed 11 cases of myxoid degeneration signal: 4 had a normal signal with reduced size, and 2 had no recognizable implant.
Conclusion: Pain, activity level, and radiological outcomes are significantly improved with use of the MCMI at a minimum 10-year follow-up compared with PMM alone. Randomized controlled trials on a larger population are necessary to confirm MCMI benefits at long term.
Background: A prospective longitudinal investigation was conducted to determine the long-term outcome of single longitudinal meniscal repairs extending into the central avascular region in patients aged 20 years or younger.
Purpose: To determine the long-term success rate and reoperation rate of meniscal repairs extending into the avascular zone.
Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods: Thirty-three meniscal repairs were performed using an inside-out multiple vertical divergent suture technique. A concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was done in 18 patients. The mean follow-up was 16.8 years (range, 10.1-21.9 years). The long-term success rate was determined in 29 repairs (88%) by the presence of normal or nearly normal parameters from 2 validated knee rating systems, assessment of magnetic resonance imaging and weightbearing posteroanterior radiographs by independent physicians, and follow-up arthroscopy when required. A 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner with cartilage-sensitive pulse sequences was used, and T2 mapping was performed. A comparison was made between the short-term (mean, 4 years) and long-term outcomes.
Results: Eighteen (62%) of the meniscal repairs had normal or nearly normal characteristics in all of the parameters assessed. Six repairs (21%) required partial arthroscopic resection, 2 had loss of joint space on radiographs, and 3 that were asymptomatic failed according to magnetic resonance imaging criteria, for a total of 11 documented failures (38%). There was no significant difference in the mean articular cartilage T2 scores in the healed menisci between the involved and contralateral tibiofemoral compartments in the same knee. There were no significant differences between short- and long-term evaluations for pain, swelling, jumping, patient knee condition rating, or the overall Cincinnati rating score.
Conclusions: A chondroprotective joint effect was demonstrated in the healed menisci repairs, which warrants the procedure in select patients. The long-term evaluation of the anterior cruciate ligament–reconstructed knees with concurrent successful meniscal repairs demonstrated a low rate of radiographic arthritis.
Background: All-inside meniscal repairs have gained popularity in the past few years. However, only a few prospective, randomized clinical studies have been done to compare different all-inside meniscal repair techniques.
Hypothesis: Meniscal repair with bioabsorbable meniscal screws and arrows results in similar clinical outcome on short-term follow-up.
Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.
Methods: Forty-two patients were prospectively randomized to have all-inside meniscal repair either by using bioabsorbable meniscal screws or bioabsorbable meniscus arrows (21 patients, 23 meniscal repairs in each group) for the fixation. The evaluation methods were clinical examination, Lysholm score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) knee score, and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) evaluation. The average follow-up time was 27 months (standard deviation, 8).
Results: There were no differences between the study groups preoperatively. All 42 patients (100%) were available for the follow-up. However, during the follow-up, 11 patients had clinical failure, confirmed at second-look arthroscopy, of the repair leading to partial meniscal resection. Four failures (all on the medial meniscus) were observed with the use of meniscal screw fixation (17%), and 7 (4 on the medial meniscus, and 3 on the lateral meniscus) with the use of meniscus arrow fixation (30%) (P = .242). Six patients with meniscus arrows (29%) had chondral damage on the femoral condyles evaluated by MRA or at second-look arthroscopy, while none of the patients with the meniscal screws had the same (P = .018). However, the Lysholm and the IKDC scores were similar in both groups at follow-up.
Conclusion: All-inside meniscal repair with bioabsorbable meniscal screws and arrows resulted in similar clinical outcome, although significantly more chondral damage was observed when using bioabsorbable meniscus arrows for fixation.
