The effects of knee meniscectomy on the development of osteoarthritis in the patellofemoral joint 40 years following meniscectomy

Outcome of meniscal repairs in paediatric population: A tertiary centre experience

BACKGROUND

Meniscal sparing surgery is a widely utilised treatment option for unstable meniscal tears with the aim of minimising the risk of progression towards osteoarthritis. However, there is limited data in the literature on meniscal repair outcomes in skeletally immature patients.

AIM

To evaluate the re-operation rate and functional outcomes of meniscal repairs in children and adolescents.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent arthroscopic meniscal repair surgery between January 2007 and January 2018. All patients were under the age of 18 at the time of surgery. Procedures were all performed by a single surgeon. Information was gathered from our hospital Electronic Patient Records system. The primary outcome measure was re-operation rate (need for further surgery on the same meniscus). Secondary outcome measures were surgical complications and patient reported outcome measures that were International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner and Lysholm scores.

RESULTS

We identified 59 patients who underwent 66 All-inside meniscal repairs (32 medial meniscus and 34 Lateral meniscus). Meniscal repairs were performed utilizing FasT-Fix (Smith and Nephew) implants. There were 37 males and 22 females with an average age of 14 years (range 6-16). The average follow-up time was 53 months (range 26-140). Six patients had concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery along with the meniscal repair. There were no intra-operative complications. The re-operation rate for meniscal repairs was 16.6% (11 cases) with 2 patients requiring further meniscal repairs and 9 patients underwent partial meniscectomies. The mean postoperative IKDC score was 88 (44-100), Tegner score was 7(2-10) and Lysholm score was 94 (57-100).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that arthroscopic repair of meniscal tears in the paediatric population is an effective treatment option that has a low failure rate and good postoperative clinical with the advantage of preserving meniscal tissues.

Home-Based vs Supervised Inpatient and/or Outpatient Rehabilitation Following Knee Meniscectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Arthroscopic meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures. The optimal postoperative approach remains debated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes associated with home-based rehabilitation programs (HBP) vs standard inpatient and/or outpatient supervised physical therapy (IOP) following arthroscopic isolated meniscectomy (AM).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases on March 15, 2021. The included studies were published from 1982 to 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of patients treated with HBP vs IOP after AM were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were independently screened and extracted by 2 authors according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model; when an I2 < 25% was observed, the fixed-effect model was used. The Hartung-Knapp correction was applied.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the Lysholm score (scale of 0-100 with higher scores indicating better knee function) and secondary outcomes were subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, knee extension and flexion, thigh girth, horizontal and vertical hop test, and days to return to work, as indicated in the PROSPERO registration. Outcomes were measured in the short-term (ranging from 28 to 50 days) and the midterm (6 months).

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis of 8 RCTs including 434 patients, IOP was associated with a greater short-term improvement in Lysholm score compared with HBP, with a mean difference of -8.64 points (95% CI, -15.14 to -2.13 points; P = .02) between the 2 approached, but the sensitivity analysis showed no difference. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was detected at midterm for Lysholm score, with a mean difference between groups of -4.78 points (95% CI, -9.98 to 0.42 points; P = .07). HBP was associated with a greater short-term improvement in thigh girth, with a mean difference between groups of 1.38 cm (95% CI, 0.27 to 2.48 cm; P = .01), whereas IOP was associated with a better short-term vertical hop score, with a mean difference between groups of -3.25 cm (95% CI, -6.20 to -0.29 cm; P = .03). No differences were found for all the other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

No intervention was found to be superior in terms of physical and functional outcomes as well as work-related and patient-reported outcomes, both at short-term and midterm follow-up. Overall, these results suggest that HBP may be an effective management approach after AM in the general population.