The orthopaedic community does not oppose the non-surgical treatment of degenerative meniscal lesions

Meniscectomy is associated with a higher rate of osteoarthritis compared to meniscal repair following acute tears: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Meniscal tears are common and may impair knee function and biomechanics. This meta-analysis compared meniscal repair versus resection in patients with symptomatic meniscal tears in terms of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), joint width, surgical failure, and rate of progression to osteoarthritis (OA) at conventional radiography.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In August 2023, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. Two reviewers independently performed the analysis and a methodological quality assessment of the included studies. All the clinical investigations which compared repair versus resection of meniscal tears were accessed.

RESULTS

Data from 20 studies (31,783 patients) were collected. The mean BMI was 28.28 ± 3.2 kg/m2, and the mean age was 37.6 ± 14.0 years. The mean time elapsed from injury to surgery was 12.1 ± 10.2 months and the mean medial joint width was 4.9 ± 0.8 mm. Between studies comparability at baseline was found in age, women, BMI, time from injury to surgery and length of the follow-up, PROMs, medial joint width, and stage of OA. The resection group demonstrated a greater Lysholm score (P = 0.02). No difference was found in the International Knee Documentation Committee (P = 0.2). Nine studies reported data on the rate of failures at a mean of 63.00 ± 24.7 months. No difference was found between the two groups in terms of persistent meniscal symptoms (P = 0.8). Six studies reported data on the rate of progression to total knee arthroplasty at a mean of 48.0 ± 14.7 months follow-up. The repair group evidenced a lower rate of progression to knee arthroplasty (P = 0.0001). Six studies reported data on the rate of advanced knee OA at a mean of 48.0 ± 14.7 months of follow-up. The repair group evidenced a lower rate of advanced knee OA (P = 0.0001). No difference was found in the mean joint space width (P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Meniscal repair is associated with a lower progression to knee osteoarthritis at approximately six years of follow-up compared to partial meniscectomy. No difference in PROMs, medial joint width, and failures were evidenced.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, meta-analysis.

Anatomical description and short-term follow up clinical results for ultrasound-guided injection of medial collateral ligament bursa: New conservative treatment option for symptomatic degenerative medial meniscus tear

BACKGROUND

In this study, we investigated newly developed ultrasound (US)-guided medial collateral ligament (MCL) bursa injection as a conservative therapy for symptomatic degenerative medial meniscal (MM) tears. We aimed to describe the anatomical target and precise technique of this injection, confirm its accuracy using fresh cadaveric knees, and then evaluate preliminary clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Anatomical studies were performed on three fresh cadavers. For the clinical study, 50 patients with medial knee joint pain without knee osteoarthritis were treated with US-guided MCL bursa injection. Severity of pain was assessed pre-injection, and 1 week and 4 weeks post-injection using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). Clinical success was defined as a full return to daily activities. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 1 week of the first injection. Patients who underwent surgery within 12 months of the first injection were investigated as clinically unsuccessful cases, and MRI and arthroscopic findings were examined.

RESULTS

Compared with pre-injection (6.8 ± 1.2), the average NRS score was significantly lower at 1 week (1.8 ± 2.0) and at 4 weeks (1.5 ± 1.7) post-injection (both P < 0.01). The primary clinical success rate was 76.0%, and injection-related adverse events were not observed. Nine patients underwent surgery (arthroscopic surgery for degenerative flap tear (n = 7) and high tibial osteotomy for medial meniscus posterior root tear and proximal tibial malalignment (n = 2)).

CONCLUSIONS

US-guided MCL bursa injection is safe, reproducible, and effective for symptomatic MM degenerative tears. However, US-guided injections of the MCL bursa may be ineffective for flap tears and posterior root tears.

No decrease in incidence of arthroscopic meniscectomy in a Canadian province

PURPOSE

Arthroscopic meniscectomy (APM) is the most common procedure in orthopedic surgery, despite increasing evidence questioning its benefit over conservative management for treatment of degenerative meniscal tears. The purpose of this study is to determine the epidemiology and trends of APM in Saskatchewan, a Canadian province, over a 20 year period.

METHODS

Physician billing codes were used to identify patients who underwent APM in Saskatchewan between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2017. Records were obtained from eHealth Saskatchewan, a provincial health database. Data was analyzed for overall incidence and age-specific trends of APM.

RESULTS

A total of 35,099 APMs were performed during the study period. The population of Saskatchewan ranged from 992,314 to 1,150,782 (median 1,017,368) during this time interval, with 81 orthopedic surgeons performing APM. Overall incidence rate of APM did not change significantly over time. No decrease was observed in patients presumed to have degenerative tears (≥ 50 years). The number of meniscectomies in patients ≥ 50 years was significantly greater during the second decade of study compared to the first (OR 1.48, p < 0.01). Conversely, the increase in incidence rate among older patients was not statistically significant (R² = 0.125, n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Overall incidence rate of APM in Saskatchewan has not decreased during the last 20 years. Furthermore, APM frequency increased over time for individuals ≥ 50 years. Several regional factors may have contributed to these findings, including the large proportion of Saskatchewan residents engaged in physically demanding work and barriers to accessing physiotherapy services. Given recent evidence disputing the benefit of APM over conservative measures, this study highlights the need for improved dissemination of evidence, as well as the importance of an individualized treatment plan to address patient-specific factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Editorial Commentary: Surgical Management of Degenerative Meniscus Lesions Is a Second- But Not a First-Line Treatment

The 20-year progression of osteoarthritis (OA) after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients aged between 50 and 70 bears a long-term risk of conversion to total knee arthroplasty of 15.7%. Negative predictors at the time of surgery are the degree of knee OA, lateral meniscectomy, age at surgery, and malalignment. This confirms the evolution of the natural history of knee OA, but most importantly, it provides arguments to further restrain indications of APM in degenerative meniscus lesions (DMLs). An improved understanding of the consequences of APM for DMLs allows to increasingly limit the indications of this procedure, thus rendering it pertinent and efficient. Over the last years, the numbers of APM have been declining in several countries. This reduction required many surgeons to undergo a paradigm shift. This change cannot be induced by an anathema but by educational programs and guidelines based on broad consensus of the surgical communities, like the 2016 European Meniscus Consensus Project initiated by the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA). It provided a reference frame for the management of DMLs, based both on scientific literature and balanced expert opinion. The proposed decisional algorithm introduced APM not as a first- but as a second-line treatment of DMLs in symptomatic patients. A recent survey presented earlier this month at the international conference "The Meniscus" among ESSKA members showed that a majority of the 460 respondents were familiar with the ESSKA consensus and that 66% of them changed their practice following its publication. Paradigm changes take time. The history of meniscus repair showed that it takes many years to develop medical and surgical practice. And there is a good reason for this. Paradigms are not fashionable that come and go with the seasons. The medical and orthopaedic communities need to get them right by improving clinical science and balancing discussions.

The future of meniscus science: international expert consensus

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the main focus areas for research and development for furthering the state of meniscus science in 2021.

Methods

An electronic survey including 10 questions was sent in a blind fashion to the faculty members of the 5^th International Conference on Meniscus Science and Surgery. These faculty served as an expert consensus on the future of research and development areas of meniscus science. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ranking weighted averages were calculated to score survey questions.

Results

Of the 82 faculty, 76 (93%) from 18 different countries completed the survey (84% male, 16% female). The highest ranked future research and development focus areas were meniscus repair, biologics, osteotomy procedures, addressing meniscus extrusion, and the development of new therapies for the prevention of posttraumatic osteoarthritis. Currently, the most ‘valuable’ type of biologic reported for meniscus treatment was platelet-rich plasma. The main reported global research limitation was a lack of long-term clinical outcomes data. The most promising emerging medical technologies for improving meniscus science were 3-D printing, personalized medicine, and artificial implants.

Conclusions

This survey suggests that the future of meniscus science should be focused on meniscal preservation techniques through meniscus repair, addressing meniscal extrusion, and the use of orthobiologics. The lack of long-term clinical outcomes was the main reported research limitation globally for meniscus treatment. Future product development utilizing emerging medical technologies suggest the use of 3-D printing for meniscal transplants/scaffolds, personalized treatment, and bioengineering for artificial implants.

Level of Evidence

Level V.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40634-021-00345-y.