A new scoring system for prediction of meniscal repair in traumatic meniscal tears

In-office needle arthroscopy is a cost-effective alternative for operating room diversion in medial meniscectomy: a financial analysis

BACKGROUND

In-office needle arthroscopy (IONA) has been described as a diagnostic alternative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for intra-articular pathology. However, few studies have analyzed its impact on cost and wait times when used as a therapeutic intervention. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact on cost and wait times associated with offering IONA for partial medial meniscectomy as an alternative to traditional operating room (OR) arthroscopy for patients with irreparable medial meniscus tears on MRI.

METHODS

Two models were created comparing the existing care pathway (current state) to a proposed future state utilizing IONA. Data sources were accounting data from an academically affiliated hospital in Canada and supplemented with literature values. A Monte Carlo simulation combined with DuPont analysis running 10,000 simulations was conducted to calculate the revenue, expenses, profits, and effect on surgical waitlists (i.e., throughput) between the states. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of patient preference and revision rates on profit and throughput. Two-sample Student's t test was performed (p < .05).

RESULTS

An average of 198 (standard deviation (SD) 31) patients underwent arthroscopic meniscectomy or repair each year from 2016 to 2020. The IONA revision rate was calculated as 20.3%. Compared to the current state, annual expenses in the IONA pathway were significantly reduced ($266,912.68 versus $281,415.23, p < .0001), while improving throughput by 21.2% (3.54%). Sensitivity analysis revealed 10% of patients need to select IONA over traditional OR arthroscopy with the revision rate remaining below 40% for the proposed state profit to be higher than the current state.

CONCLUSIONS

IONA is a cost-effective alternative to traditional OR arthroscopy in patients undergoing partial medial meniscectomy. The next steps are to assess patients' perceptions of IONA as an alternative to traditional OR arthroscopy, and to carry out clinical trials to determine the efficacy, patient-reported outcome metrics, and complications of IONA.

The Modified PROMT Score: A Better Prognosticative Tool to Assess Traumatic Meniscal Tear Reparability

Background

Considering various factors that influence meniscal repairability, Ortho One PROMT score (OPS) was proposed in 2019. With an increased understanding of factors influencing meniscal repair and by analysis of OPS predictions and repair results, a modified PROMT score (MPS) has been formulated. The objective of this study is to assess the superiority of MPS over OPS.

Methods

Age, chronicity, and pattern of tears were found to be important contributors to false-negative results of OPS. Considering these factors, MPS was designed. A prospective, double-blinded study was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of both scores were calculated. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted.

Results

Of 133 meniscal tears, 100 met the inclusion criteria. In predicting meniscal repairability, OPS demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 90.32% and 83.33% medially and 64.71% and 79.41% laterally. MPS had sensitivity and specificity of 96.77% and 88.89% medially and 82.35% and 88.24% laterally. Both scores showed good statistical significance (p < 0.05) in predicting meniscal reparability. For medial meniscus repairability, area under the ROC curve was 0.868 for OPS and 0.928 for MPS. For lateral repairability, the area under the curve was 0.721 for OPS and 0.853 for MPS.

Conclusion

MPS will serve as a simple and more effective tool for surgeons to predict meniscal repairability, thus enhancing their pre-surgical preparedness. This tool will also help surgeons to realistically counsel their patients and to achieve optimal patient.

Clinical outcomes, healing rate, and presence of peri-meniscal cysts after all-inside meniscal repair in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective comparative study with magnetic resonance imaging assessment

PURPOSE

Meniscal repairs are the most common associated procedures during ACL reconstruction, but they present challenging indications and possible risks of complications or failures. The aim of the present study is to assess the clinical outcomes of all-inside meniscal repairs in the setting of ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Twenty patients with ACL reconstruction and all-inside meniscal repair were compared to 20 patients with isolated ACL reconstruction. All patients were prospectively evaluated pre-operatively, at four month, and 18-month follow-up with KT-1000, Kira accelerometer for pivot-shift, KOOS, Marx score, and SF-36. Meniscal healing and presence of peri-meniscal cysts were assessed on standardized 1.5-T MRIs performed at 18 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-one meniscal repairs were performed in 20 patients (81% medial, 19% lateral). At 18 months, 48% had complete healing, 38% had incomplete healing, and 14% had no healing. Peri-meniscal cysts were present in 33% of cases. Worst pre-operative KOOS pain (p = 0.0435) and ADL (p = 0 .0201) were present in patients with meniscal lesion, while no differences were present at four months and 18 months between patients with or without meniscal repair (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted stratifying patients according to meniscal healing or cyst presence, except of a lower Qol KOOS subscale in patients with peri-meniscal cysts (p = 0.0430).

CONCLUSIONS

Meniscal repairs produced good short-term results when performed in combination to ACL reconstruction. Full or partial healing at MRI was present in 86% of cases. One patient out of three developed peri-meniscal cysts.

The Reliability of 3-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Identify Arthroscopic Features of Meniscal Tears and Its Utility to Predict Meniscal Tear Reparability

BACKGROUND

The ability to predict meniscus tear reparability based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is desirable for postoperative planning; however, the accuracy of predictive methods varies widely within the orthopaedic and radiology literature.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to determine if the higher resolution offered by 3-T MRI improves the accuracy of predicting reparability compared with previous investigations using 1.5-T MRI. Our hypothesis was that a higher field strength of 3-T MRI would result in improved reliability assessments and predictions of meniscus tear reparability compared with previous studies utilizing a 1.5-T MRI platform.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 44 patients who underwent meniscus repair were matched by age, sex, and body mass index to 43 patients who underwent partial meniscectomy. Overall, 2 orthopaedic surgeons and 2 musculoskeletal radiologists independently and blindly reviewed the preoperative MRI scans for all 87 patients. For each meniscus tear, reviewers evaluated the following criteria: tear pattern, tear length, tear distance from the meniscocapsular junction, tear thickness, and integrity of any inner meniscal fragment. The resultant data were then applied to 5 different approaches for predicting meniscal reparability.

RESULTS

The accuracy for all examined prediction methods was poor, ranging from 55% (3-point method) to 72% (classification tree method) among all reviewers. Interobserver reliability for examined criteria was also poor, with kappa values ranging from 0.07 (inner meniscal fragment status) to 0.40 (tear pattern).

CONCLUSION

MRI continues to be a poor predictor of meniscus tear reparability as assessed by arthroscopic criteria, even when using higher resolution 3-T scanners. Interobserver reliability in this setting can be poor, even among experienced clinicians.

Evidence-based Risk Stratification for Sport Medicine Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Orthopaedic practices have been markedly affected by the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the ban on elective procedures, it is impossible to define the medical urgency of a case solely on whether a case is on an elective surgery schedule. Orthopaedic surgical procedures should consider COVID-19-associated risks and an assimilation of all available disease dependent, disease independent, and logistical information that is tailored to each patient, institution, and region. Using an evidence-based risk stratification of clinical urgency, we provide a framework for prioritization of orthopaedic sport medicine procedures that encompasses such factors. This can be used to facilitate the risk-benefit assessment of the timing and setting of a procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic.