Higher healing rate after meniscal repair with concomitant ACL reconstruction for tears located in vascular zone 1 compared to zone 2: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Meniscus Tears in Elite Athletes: Treatment Considerations, Clinical Outcomes, and Return to Play

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of meniscal injuries in the elite athlete is a difficult problem secondary to the high demands of athletic competition, the need for a timely return to sport, and the desire to maximize performance over time. The purpose of this review is to provide an up-to-date summary on the current literature and trends regarding the management of meniscus injuries with a special consideration for elite athletes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Historically, partial meniscectomy has been the primary treatment option for meniscus injuries. However, in recent years there has been an increased emphasis on meniscus preservation due to the increased risk of cartilage degeneration over time. Moreover, while partial meniscectomy still provides a quicker return to sport (RTS), recent literature has demonstrated similar rates of RTS and return to pre-injury levels between partial meniscectomy and meniscus repair. In the setting of symptomatic meniscal deficiency, meniscus allograft transplantation has become an increasingly utilized salvage procedure with promising yet variable outcomes on the ability to withstand elite competition. Currently, there is no uniform approach to treating meniscal injuries in elite athletes. Therefore, an individualized approach is required with consideration of the meniscus tear type, location, concomitant injuries, athlete expectations, rehabilitation timeline, and desire to prevent or delay knee osteoarthritis. In athletes with anatomically repairable tears, meniscus repair should be performed given the ability to restore native anatomy, provide high rates of RTS, and mitigate long-term chondral damage. However, partial meniscectomy can be indicated for unrepairable tears.

Evaluation and Treatment of Knee Pain: A Review

Importance

Approximately 5% of all primary care visits in adults are related to knee pain. Osteoarthritis (OA), patellofemoral pain, and meniscal tears are among the most common causes of knee pain.

Observations

Knee OA, affecting an estimated 654 million people worldwide, is the most likely diagnosis of knee pain in patients aged 45 years or older who present with activity-related knee joint pain with no or less than 30 minutes of morning stiffness (95% sensitivity; 69% specificity). Patellofemoral pain typically affects people younger than 40 years who are physically active and has a lifetime prevalence of approximately 25%. The presence of anterior knee pain during a squat is approximately 91% sensitive and 50% specific for patellofemoral pain. Meniscal tears affect an estimated 12% of the adult population and can occur following acute trauma (eg, twisting injury) in people younger than 40 years. Alternatively, a meniscal tear may be a degenerative condition present in patients with knee OA who are aged 40 years or older. The McMurray test, consisting of concurrent knee rotation (internal or external to test lateral or medial meniscus, respectively) and extension (61% sensitivity; 84% specificity), and joint line tenderness (83% sensitivity; 83% specificity) assist diagnosis of meniscal tears. Radiographic imaging of all patients with possible knee OA is not recommended. First-line management of OA comprises exercise therapy, weight loss (if overweight), education, and self-management programs to empower patients to better manage their condition. Surgical referral for knee joint replacement can be considered for patients with end-stage OA (ie, no or minimal joint space with inability to cope with pain) after using all appropriate conservative options. For patellofemoral pain, hip and knee strengthening exercises in combination with foot orthoses or patellar taping are recommended, with no indication for surgery. Conservative management (exercise therapy for 4-6 weeks) is also appropriate for most meniscal tears. For severe traumatic (eg, bucket-handle) tears, consisting of displaced meniscal tissue, surgery is likely required. For degenerative meniscal tears, exercise therapy is first-line treatment; surgery is not indicated even in the presence of mechanical symptoms (eg, locking, catching).

Conclusions and Relevance

Knee OA, patellofemoral pain, and meniscal tears are common causes of knee pain, can be diagnosed clinically, and can be associated with significant disability. First-line treatment for each condition consists of conservative management, with a focus on exercise, education, and self-management.

Delaying ACL reconstruction is associated with increased rates of medial meniscal tear

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the time from injury to ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and the rate as well as repairability of meniscal tears. Secondary aims were to evaluate the relationship between meniscal injury and Tegner Activity Scale, age, BMI, and gender.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2022, 1,840 consecutive ACLRs were performed. A total of 1,317 ACLRs were included with a mean patient age of 31.2 years ± 10.5 [16-60]. Meniscal tear was assessed during arthroscopy using the ISAKOS classification. Time from injury to ACLR, Tegner Activity Scale, age, BMI and gender were analysed in uni- and then in multivariate analyses. Patients were divided into four groups according to the time from injury to surgery: < 3 months (427; 32%), 3-6 months (388; 29%), 6-12 months (248; 19%) and > 12 months (254; 19%).

RESULTS

Delaying ACLR > 12 months significantly increased the rate of medial meniscal (MM) injury (OR 1.14; p < 0.001). No correlation was found between a 3- or 6-month time from injury to surgery and MM tear. Performing ACLR > 3, 6, or 12 months after injury did not significantly increase the rate of lateral meniscal (LM) injury. Increasing Tegner activity scale was significantly associated with a lower rate of MM injury (OR 0.90; p = 0.020). An age > 30 years (OR 1.07; p = 0.025) and male gender (OR 1.13; p < 0.0001) was also associated with an increased rate of MM injury. Age > 30 years decreased the rate of MM repair (OR 0.85; p < 0.001). Male gender increased the rate of LM tear (OR 1.10; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Performing ACLR more than 12 months after injury was associated with increased rates of MM injury but not with lower rates of repairable lesions. An increased pre-injury Tegner activity score was associated with a decreased rate of MM tear. Age > 30 years was associated with an increased rate of MM tear with concomitant ACL injury and a decreased rate of repairability of MM tear. ACLR should be performed within 12 months from injury to prevent from the risk of MM injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Platelet-Rich Plasma and Marrow Venting May Serve as Cost-Effective Augmentation Techniques for Isolated Meniscal Repair: A Decision-Analytical Markov Model-Based Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 isolated meniscal repair (IMR) treatment strategies: platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-augmented IMR, IMR with a marrow venting procedure (MVP), and IMR without biological augmentation.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the baseline case: a young adult patient meeting the indications for IMR. Health utility values, failure rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing IMR at an outpatient surgery center. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Total costs of IMR with an MVP were $8,250; PRP-augmented IMR, $12,031; and IMR without PRP or an MVP, $13,326. PRP-augmented IMR resulted in an additional 2.16 QALYs, whereas IMR with an MVP produced slightly fewer QALYs, at 2.13. Non-augmented repair produced a modeled gain of 2.02 QALYs. The ICER comparing PRP-augmented IMR versus MVP-augmented IMR was $161,742/QALY, which fell well above the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

IMR with biological augmentation (MVP or PRP) resulted in a higher number of QALYs and lower costs than non-augmented IMR, suggesting that biological augmentation is cost-effective. Total costs of IMR with an MVP were significantly lower than those of PRP-augmented IMR, whereas the number of additional QALYs produced by PRP-augmented IMR was only slightly higher than that produced by IMR with an MVP. As a result, neither treatment dominated over the other. However, because the ICER of PRP-augmented IMR fell well above the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, IMR with an MVP was determined to be the overall cost-effective treatment strategy in the setting of young adult patients with isolated meniscal tears.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, economic and decision analysis.

Meniscus tears treatment: The good, the bad and the ugly-patterns classification and practical guide

Over the years, several studies demonstrated the crucial role of knee menisci in joint biomechanics. As a result, save the meniscus has become the new imperative nowadays, and more and more studies addressed this topic. The huge amount of data on this topic may create confusion in those who want to approach this surgery. The aim of this review is to provide a practical guide for treatment of meniscus tears, including an overview of technical aspects, outcomes in the literature and personal tips. Taking inspiration from a famous movie directed by Sergio Leone in 1966, the authors classified meniscus tears in three categories: The good, the bad and the ugly lesions. The inclusion in each group was determined by the lesion pattern, its biomechanical effects on knee joint, the technical challenge, and prognosis. This classification is not intended to substitute the currently proposed classifications on meniscus tears but aims at offering a reader-friendly narrative review of an otherwise difficult topic. Furthermore, the authors provide a concise premise to deal with some aspects of menisci phylogeny, anatomy and biomechanics.