Failed meniscal repair increases the risk for osteoarthritis and poor knee function at an average of 9 years follow-up

Osteoarthritis Development Following Meniscectomy vs. Meniscal Repair for Posterior Medial Meniscus Injuries: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to evaluate critically and synthesize the existing literature on the outcomes of meniscectomy versus meniscal repair for posterior medial meniscus injuries, with a focus on osteoarthritis (OA) development. We sought to assess the incidence of OA following both treatment modalities, compare functional outcomes post-treatment, and identify factors influencing treatment choice, providing evidence-based recommendations for clinical decision-making. A comprehensive search strategy was employed across PubMed, Scopus, and Embase up until December 2023, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes included OA development, functional knee outcomes, and quality of life measures. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 298 patients. The systematic review revealed a significant association between meniscal repair and decreased progression of OA compared to meniscectomy. Meniscectomy patients demonstrated a 51.42% progression rate towards OA, significantly higher than the 21.28% observed in meniscal repair patients. Functional outcomes, as measured by the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, were notably better in the repair group, with average scores of 74.68 (IKDC) and 83.78 (Lysholm) compared to 67.55 (IKDC) and 74.56 (Lysholm) in the meniscectomy group. Furthermore, the rate of complete healing in the repair group was reported at 71.4%, as one study reported, indicating a favorable prognosis for meniscal preservation. However, these pooled data should be interpreted with consideration to the heterogeneity of the analyzed studies. Meniscal repair for posterior medial meniscus injuries is superior to meniscectomy in preventing OA development and achieving better functional outcomes and quality of life post-treatment. These findings strongly suggest the adoption of meniscal repair as the preferred treatment modality for such injuries, emphasizing the need for a paradigm shift in clinical practice towards preserving meniscal integrity to optimize patient outcomes.

Differences in postoperative knee function based on concomitant treatment of lateral meniscal injury in the setting of primary ACL reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Concomitant lateral meniscal (LM) injuries are common in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. However, the effect of addressing these injuries with various treatment methods during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2-, 5-, and 10-years after isolated primary ACLR to primary ACLR with various treatment methods to address concomitant LM injury.

METHODS

This study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients ≥ 15 years with data on postoperative KOOS who underwent primary ACLR between the years 2005 and 2018 were included in this study. The study population was divided into five groups: 1) Isolated ACLR, 2) ACLR + LM repair, 3) ACLR + LM resection, 4) ACLR + LM injury left in situ, and 5) ACLR + LM repair + LM resection. Patients with concomitant medial meniscal or other surgically treated ligament injuries were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 31,819 included patients, 24% had LM injury. After post hoc comparisons, significantly lower scores were found for the KOOS Symptoms subscale in ACLR + LM repair group compared to isolated ACLR (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.0097) and ACLR + LM injury left in situ groups (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.041) at 2-year follow-up. However, at 10-year follow-up, no differences were found between ACLR + LM repair and isolated ACLR, but ACLR + LM resection resulted in significantly lower KOOS Symptoms scores compared to isolated ACLR (80.4 vs 82.3, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that LM injury during ACLR is associated with lower KOOS scores, particularly in the Symptoms subscale, at short- and long-term follow-up. However, this finding falls below minimal clinical important difference and therefore may not be clinically relevant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

The Interplay of Biomechanical and Biological Changes Following Meniscus Injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Meniscus injury often leads to joint degeneration and post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) development. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to outline the current understanding of biomechanical and biological repercussions following meniscus injury and how these changes impact meniscus repair and PTOA development. Moreover, we identify key gaps in knowledge that must be further investigated to improve meniscus healing and prevent PTOA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Following meniscus injury, both biomechanical and biological alterations frequently occur in multiple tissues in the joint. Biomechanically, meniscus tears compromise the ability of the meniscus to transfer load in the joint, making the cartilage more vulnerable to increased strain. Biologically, the post-injury environment is often characterized by an increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines, catabolic enzymes, and immune cells. These multi-faceted changes have a significant interplay and result in an environment that opposes tissue repair and contributes to PTOA development. Additionally, degenerative changes associated with OA may cause a feedback cycle, negatively impacting the healing capacity of the meniscus. Strides have been made towards understanding post-injury biological and biomechanical changes in the joint, their interplay, and how they affect healing and PTOA development. However, in order to improve clinical treatments to promote meniscus healing and prevent PTOA development, there is an urgent need to understand the physiologic changes in the joint following injury. In particular, work is needed on the in vivo characterization of the temporal biomechanical and biological changes that occur in patients following meniscus injury and how these changes contribute to PTOA development.

Remnant preserving ACL reconstruction with a functional remnant is related to improved laxity but not to improved clinical outcomes in comparison to a nonfunctional remnant

PURPOSE

The Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnant has been pointed out as a ligamentization enhancer. Nonetheless, the remaining tissue can be functional if it still provides some stability or nonfunctional. This study intends to compare the clinical results and knee stability of functional vs. nonfunctional remnant preservation ACL reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-five patients with ACL injuries were included and underwent remnant preservation ACLR. They were divided into two groups accordingly to remnant tissue functionality: functional (Group F) and nonfunctional (Group NF). Primary outcome was defined as patient reported outcomes measured with Lysholm, IKDC and Tegner continuous scales and improvements. Secondary outcomes comprised of Lachman test, anterior drawer test, pivot shift test, extension and flexion deficit, graft coverage by remnant preserved tissue and failure rate (persistent instability or new ACL lesion). Menisci lesions, cartilage lesions and time to surgery were also recorded for each group.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-four patients were available at a mean of 30.2 ± 10.1 months: 69 Functional and 75 Nonfunctional. Lysholm, IKDC and Tegner functional outcomes demonstrated no difference between the groups, Functional compared to Nonfunctional: 88.4 ± 10.5 vs. 92.2 ± 4.9, n.s. and 83.2 ± 11.3 vs. 87 ± 5.3, n.s. and 6 (5-10) vs. 6 (5-9), n.s., respectively. Lysholm and IKDC functional outcomes improvements demonstrated differences between the groups: Functional compared to Nonfunctional (39.3 ± 9.4 vs. 42.3 ± 7.4, p = 0.014 and 37.7 ± 10 vs. 41.0 ± 6.6, p = 0.032); however, they were not clinically significant. Functional group showed more stability on physical examination pre- and post-operatively (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). There was no difference regarding extension deficit (n.s.); however, functional group had more flexion deficit (p = 0.02). Nonfunctional group had better graft coverage (p = 0.001). There was no difference regarding failure rate: 4% vs. 9%, (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Both remnant preservation ACLR techniques were able to achieve satisfactory functional outcomes. A functional remnant was not related to improved functional outcomes in comparison to a nonfunctional remnant; however, it was related to less laxity pre and postoperatively and inferior graft coverage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

The Danger Zone for Iatrogenic Neurovascular Injury in All-Inside Lateral Meniscal Repair in Relation to the Popliteal Tendon: An MRI Study

Background:

Lateral meniscal repair can endanger the nearby neurovascular structure (peroneal nerve or popliteal artery). To our knowledge, there have been no studies to evaluate the danger zone of all-inside meniscal repair through the anteromedial (AM) and anterolateral (AL) portals in relation to the medial and lateral edges of the popliteal tendon (PT).

Purpose:

To establish the risk of neurovascular injury and the danger zone in repairing the lateral meniscus in relation to the medial and lateral edges of the PT.

Study Design:

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods:

Using axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies at the level of the lateral meniscus, lines were drawn to simulate a straight, all-inside meniscal repair device, drawn from the AM and AL portals to both the medial and lateral edges of the PT. In cases in which the line passed through the neurovascular structure, a risk of iatrogenic neurovascular injury was deemed, and measurements were made to determine the danger zones of neurovascular injury in relation to the medial or lateral edges of the PT.

Results:

Axial MRI images of 240 adult patients were reviewed retrospectively. Repairing the body of the lateral meniscus through the AM portal had a greater risk of neurovascular injury than repairs made through the AL portal in relation to the medial edge of the PT (P = .006). The danger zone in repairing the lateral meniscus through the AM portal extended 1.82 ± 1.68 mm laterally from the lateral edge of the PT and 3.13 ± 2.45 mm medially from the medial edge of the PT. Through the AL portal, the danger zone extended 2.81 ± 1.94 mm laterally from the lateral edge of the PT and 1.39 ± 1.53 mm medially from the medial edge of the PT.

Conclusion:

Repairing the lateral meniscus through either the AM or the AL portals in relation to the PT can endanger the peroneal nerve or popliteal artery.

Clinical Relevance:

The surgeon can minimize the risk of iatrogenic neurovascular injury in lateral meniscal repair by avoiding using the all-inside meniscal device in the danger zone area as described in this study.