Repair Augmentation of Unstable, Complete Vertical Meniscal Tears With Bone Marrow Venting Procedure: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled Study

Biologic Augmentation of Isolated Meniscal Repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The limited blood supply and intrinsic healing capacity of the meniscus contributes to suboptimal tissue regeneration following injury and surgical repair. Biologic augmentation techniques have been utilized in combination with isolated meniscal repair to improve tissue regeneration. Several innovative strategies such as Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), fibrin clots, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), bone marrow stimulation, meniscal scaffolds, and meniscal wrapping, are being explored to enhance repair outcomes. This article provides a comprehensive review of recent findings and conclusions regarding biologic augmentation techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies on PRP reveal mixed outcomes, with some suggesting benefits in reducing failure rates of isolated meniscal repair, while others question its efficacy. Fibrin clots and PRF (Platelet-rich fibrin), although promising, show inconsistent results and lack sufficient evidence for definitive conclusions. MSCs demonstrate potential in preclinical studies, but clinical trials have been limited and inconclusive. Bone marrow stimulation appears effective in certain contexts, but its broader applicability remains uncertain. Meniscal scaffolds, including CMI (Collagen Meniscal Implants) and Actifit (polyurethane scaffolds), show encouraging short- and mid-term outcomes but have not consistently surpassed traditional methods in the long term. Meniscal wrapping is infrequently studied but demonstrates positive short-term results with certain applications. The review reveals a diverse range of outcomes for biologic augmentation in meniscal repair. While certain techniques show promise, particularly in specific scenarios, the overall efficacy of these methods has yet to reach a consensus. The review underscores the necessity for standardized, high-quality research to establish the definitive effectiveness of these biologic augmentation methods.

The Impact of Bone Marrow Venting Augmentation on Knee Functions in the Repair of Vertical/Longitudinal Meniscus Tears: A Triple Comparison

Objective

Preserving and restoring meniscus function is crucial for maintaining knee biomechanics and overall functionality. To enhance the healing process after meniscus repair, various biological techniques have been introduced. In this study, three treatment approaches examined were bone marrow venting with stem cells (BMVP), anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with meniscus repair, and isolated meniscus repair.

Materials and Methods

From 2015 to 2019, we retrospectively analyzed data from 83 patients who presented with complaints of knee pain or pain in addition to instability, were diagnosed with vertical/longitudinal meniscus tears, and underwent arthroscopic repair (30 with isolated repair, 28 with ACLR repair, and 25 with BMVP) at our University Hospital. Among the 28 patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture, pain and instability were the predominant complaints, whereas 55 patients with meniscus tear primarily complained pain. Clinical and functional conditions were assessed using Lysholm, WOMAC, IKDC, and VAS scores before and 18 months after surgery. Surgical success was evaluated based on Barrett's criteria. Causes of failure were analyzed considering demographic data, smoking status, injury time, tear location, shape, zone, and suture type and number.

Results

Of the participants, 58 were male, 25 were female, 61 had medial meniscus lesions, and 22 had lateral meniscus lesions. The tear types included 51 simple longitudinal tears, 18 bucket handle tears, and 14 complex tears. A significant improvement was observed in the postoperative 18 month Lysholm, WOMAC, and IKDC values in all three groups (p: 0.001). At the 18 month mark, clinical and functional outcomes were comparable between BMVP and ACLR repair groups (Lysholm p: 0.951, WOMAC p: 0.241, IKDC p: 0.984). Both of these procedures yielded better results compared to isolated meniscus repair (Lysholm p: 0.001, WOMAC p: 0.027, IKDC p: 0.001).

Conclusion

The superior clinical and functional outcomes observed after meniscus repair with BMVP and ACLR, compared to isolated meniscus repair, indicate positive effects of bone marrow stem cells, blood components, and tissue healing factors on meniscus repair and knee function.

Examining the Evidence Regarding Smoking and Patient Outcomes for Isolated Meniscus Pathology: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Smoking is a well-known cause of impairment in wound healing and postoperative outcomes; however, its effects on treating meniscus issues remain unclear. This study assesses the relationship between smoking and meniscus treatment outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 24 December 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies examining smoking's impact on patient outcomes regarding meniscus pathology. A secondary PubMed search targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the top ten orthopedic journals focusing on meniscus pathology and smoking as a demographic variable. Meta-analysis of six studies (n = 528) assessed meniscus failure rate based on smoking status. Eighteen observational studies (n = 8353 patients; 53.25% male; mean age: 51.35 ± 11.53 years; follow-up: 184.11 ± 117.34 months) were analyzed, covering meniscus repair, meniscectomy, allograft transplant, conservative care, and arthroscopy. Results showed four studies (36.36%) linked smoking with worse meniscus repair outcomes, while seven studies (63.64%) did not find significant associations. Meta-analysis from six studies showed no significant impact of smoking on repair failure (p = 0.118). Regarding meniscectomy, one study (33.33%) identified a significant association with smoking, but two did not. Only one (3.8%) of the RCTs in leading orthopedic journals included smoking as a factor. The evidence on smoking's effect on meniscus treatment is mixed, necessitating further investigation.

Meniscal Repair Outcome in 3829 Patients With a Minimum Follow-up From 2 Years Up to 5 Years: A Meta-analysis on the Overall Failure Rate and Factors Influencing Failure

BACKGROUND

The importance of meniscal repair is widely accepted because of the association of loss of meniscal tissue with the development of early-onset knee arthritis. Many factors influencing the results of meniscal repair have been reported, but results remain controversial.

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis determines the pooled meniscal repair failure rate of studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years up to 5 years, with a mean follow-up of 43 months. Moreover, selected failure-influencing factors are analyzed.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies published between January 2000 and November 2021 reporting on meniscal repair outcome with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The overall pooled failure rate and pooled failure rates for possible predictors were calculated. Random-effect models were used to pool failure rates, and effect estimates in the form of odds ratios with 95% CIs were established.

RESULTS

The initial literature search identified 6519 studies. A total of 51 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 3931 menisci were included with an overall failure rate of 14.8%. Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly lower failure rate for meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction compared with knees without any reported injury to the ACL (8.5% vs 14%; P = .043). The pooled failure rate for lateral meniscal repair was significantly lower than that for medial meniscal repair (6.1% vs 10.8%; P = .031). Pooled failure rates of all-inside and inside-out repair were not significantly different (11.9% vs 10.6%; P > .05).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis on close to 4000 patients demonstrates an overall meniscal repair failure rate of 14.8% at a minimum follow-up from 2 years up to 5 years. Meniscal repair remains a procedure with a high failure rate, especially within the first 2 postoperative years. This review and meta-analysis also identified clinically relevant factors associated with favorable outcomes such as concomitant ACL reconstruction or repair of the lateral meniscus. All-inside meniscal repair with the latest-generation devices yields failure rates of <10%. The failure mechanism and the time of failure is poorly documented; further studies are needed for a better understanding of the retear mechanism.

Molecular Biology of Meniscal Healing: A Narrative Review

This review provides insights at the molecular level into the current and old methods for treating meniscal injuries. Meniscal injuries have been found to have a substantial impact on the progression of osteoarthritis. In line with the "save the meniscus" approach, meniscectomy is considered a last-resort treatment. Nevertheless, it is important to note that mechanical repair alone may not achieve the complete restoration of the meniscus. A deep understanding of the healing pathways could lead to future improvements in meniscal healing. The inclusion of cytokines and chemokines has the potential to facilitate the process of tear repair or impede the inflammatory catabolic cascade. MicroRNA (miRNA) could serve as a potential biomarker for meniscal degeneration, and RNA injections might promote collagen and growth factor production. The critical aspect of the healing process is angiogenesis within the inner zone of the meniscus. The use of collagen scaffolds and the implantation of autologous meniscus fragments have been successfully integrated into clinical settings. These findings are encouraging and underscore the need for well-designed clinical trials to explore the most effective factors that can enhance the process of meniscal repair.

An Update on Orthobiologics: Cautious Optimism

Orthobiologics are rapidly growing in use given their potential to augment healing for multiple musculoskeletal conditions. Orthobiologics consist of a variety of treatments including platelet-rich plasma and stem cells that provide conceptual appeal in providing local delivery of growth factors and inflammation modulation. The lack of standardization in nomenclature and applications within the literature has led to a paucity of high-quality evidence to support their frequent use. The purpose of this review was to describe the current landscape of orthobiologics and the most recent evidence regarding their use.

Bone channeling in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I studies

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing controversy regarding the effect of bone channeling in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Since the most recent systematic reviews in 2019, several large high-level trials have been completed. This study assessed all available level I randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without bone marrow channeling.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted through mid January 2023. Two reviewers performed screening of studies meeting the eligibility criteria: English-language RCTs in patients aged ≥18 years comparing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of full-thickness tears with and without bone marrow channeling (channeling group and control group, respectively). Functional scores, pain, healing rates, and reoperations were reviewed using pooled analysis where appropriate. The methodologic quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

A total of 6 randomized studies (N = 593) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis of all 6 studies showed no significant mean difference in function (1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.63 to 3.26), as measured by the Constant-Murley score. Retear rates were also not statistically different between groups (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.71), with pooled retear rates of 19.6% (48 of 245) with channeling and 19.8% (51 of 257) without. The other outcomes of interest were only available for analysis in a subset of studies. There were no standardized mean differences in pain (0.09; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.36), and there were similar reoperation rates (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.43 to 3.34) in the channeling and control groups. For the included studies, the overall quality of evidence by outcome was judged to be moderate (function, pain, and reoperations) or low (retear rates), mainly owing to risk of bias (all outcomes) and inconsistency (retear rates).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study refute the findings of prior systematic reviews that showed that channeling reduces the retear rate when combined with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. This meta-analysis of level I evidence, including recent larger RCTs, demonstrates that bone marrow stimulation in the setting of primary arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has no significant effect on functional outcomes, healing, pain, or reoperation rates.

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.

Bone Marrow-Derived Fibrin Clots Stimulate Healing of a Meniscal Defect in a Rabbit Model

PURPOSE

To determine the in vivo effectiveness of bone marrow aspirate-derived (BMA) fibrin clots for avascular meniscal defect healing in a rabbit model.

METHODS

In 42 Japanese white rabbits, a 2.0-mm cylindrical defect was introduced into the avascular zone of the anterior part of the medial meniscus in the bilateral knees. The rabbits were grouped according to implantation of a BMA fibrin clot (BMA group) or a peripheral blood (PB)-derived clot (PB group) into the defect and nonimplantation (control group). Macroscopic and histological assessments were performed using a scoring system at 4 and 12 weeks after surgery. At 12 weeks after surgery, compressive stress was analyzed biomechanically.

RESULTS

The meniscal score in the BMA group (12.1) was greater than that in the PB group (5.5; P = .031) and control group (4.4; P = .013) at 4 weeks. The meniscal score in the BMA group (13.1) was greater than that in the control group (6.4; BMA = 13.1; P = .0046) at 12 weeks. In the biomechanical analysis, the BMA group demonstrated significantly higher compressive strength than the PB group (6.6 MPa) (BMA = 15.4 MPa; P = .0201) and control group (3.6 MPa; BMA = 15.4 MPa; P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of BMA fibrin clots into the meniscal defect of the avascular zone in a rabbit model improved the meniscal score at 4 weeks and strengthened the reparative meniscal tissue at 12 weeks compared with the implantation of PB fibrin clots.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Healing in the avascular zone of the meniscus can be problematic. Approaches to improving this healing response have had variable results. This study provides additional information that may help improve the outcomes in patients with these injuries.

All-Inside Meniscal Repair: A Historical View

Background:

All-inside meniscal repair first became popularized in the early 2000s. Since that time, there has been a wide variety of all-inside implants on the market with rapid changes and developments in recent years.

Indications:

Small, peripheral, longitudinal tears are best suited for all-inside repair, but this technique may even be used for large bucket handle tears especially when hybridized with an inside-out repair.

Technique Description:

A percutaneous release of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) with an 18-g spinal needle is frequently performed when working in the medial compartment to improve visualization and decrease risk of iatrogenic chondral injury. Close familiarity with the characteristics of the chosen all-inside device including device angle, modifiability of device angle, modifiability of needle depth, deployment method, and tensioning technique is important for obtaining reproducible results. Typically, obtaining a vertical mattress stitch configuration is optimal as it captures more circumferential collagen fibers in the repair.

Results:

Factors to consider when selecting an all-inside meniscal repair device include the ergonomics of the device, implant cost, availability, rigid versus suture-based anchor, core needle diameter, device flexibility, and percent of misfires.

Discussion:

Complications from use of all-inside meniscus repair devices include device failure, soft tissue entrapment, cyst formation, and injury to the popliteal artery. Outcomes, however, with current devices are good and comparable to inside-out meniscus repair with about a 90% return to sports rate at 12 months postoperatively. The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Repair of a Horizontal Cleavage Tear of the Lateral Meniscus with Circumferential Compression Stitches and Marrow Venting Augmentation

Horizontal cleavage tears (HCTs) are challenging meniscal tear patterns, as they split the meniscus into inferior and superior leaflets, while also involving the central, less vascular portions of the meniscus. Circumferential compression sutures using an all-inside self-retrieving suture passing device like the Novostitch Pro (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA) have demonstrated the ability to create stable repair constructs with uniform compression across both leaflets in the setting of HCTs. Additionally, biological augmentation of meniscal repairs using a marrow venting procedure (MVP) has demonstrated superior clinical outcomes relative to isolated meniscal repairs. Thus, the purpose of this technical note is to outline our procedure for implementing circumferential compression sutures and biologic augmentation using an MVP for repairing an HCT of the lateral meniscus.

Meniscal Repair Outcomes at Greater Than 5 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The utilization of meniscal repair techniques continues to evolve in an effort to maximize the rate of healing. Meniscal repair outcomes at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively appear to better represent the true failure rates. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature was conducted to assess the rate of failure at a minimum of 5 years after meniscal repair.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the outcomes of meniscal repair at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. A standardized search and review strategy was utilized. Failure was defined as recurrent clinical symptoms or a meniscal reintervention to repair or resect the meniscus in any capacity, as defined by the study. When reported, outcomes were assessed relative to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) status, sex, age, and postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies of 1,612 patients and 1,630 meniscal repairs were included in this review and meta-analysis. The pooled overall failure rate was 22.6%, while the failure rate of modern repairs (excluding early-generation all-inside devices) was 19.5%. Medial repairs were significantly more likely to fail compared with lateral repairs (23.9% versus 12.6%, p = 0.04). Failure rates were similar for inside-out (14.2%) and modern all-inside repairs (15.8%). Early-generation all-inside devices had a significantly higher failure rate (30.2%) compared with modern all-inside devices (15.8%, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in meniscal failure rate between repairs with concomitant ACL reconstruction (21.2%) and repairs in ACL-intact knees (23.3%, p = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Modern meniscal repair had an overall failure rate of 19.5% at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. Modern all-inside techniques appear to have improved the success rate of meniscal repair compared with use of early-generation all-inside devices. Lateral repairs were significantly more likely to be successful compared with medial repairs, while no difference was seen between patients undergoing meniscal repair with and without concomitant ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Meniscus Repair Part 2: Technical Aspects, Biologic Augmentation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes

Multiple meniscal repair techniques exist, and successful healing and excellent patient outcomes have been reported with a variety of all-inside and open techniques. Increased awareness and recognition of root tears and meniscocapsular separations are topics of recent interest. The ideal treatment of these injuries remains uncertain, and definitive recommendations regarding their treatment are lacking. Postoperative protocols regarding weight bearing and range of motion are controversial and require future study. The role of biologics in the augmentation of meniscal repair remains unclear but promising. An evidence-based individualized approach for meniscal repair focusing on clinical outcomes and value is essential.

Second-look arthroscopy after meniscus repair and synovial mesenchymal stem cell transplantation to treat degenerative flaps and radial tears of the medial meniscus: A case report

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare arthroscopic findings of a degenerative flap and radial tear of the medial meniscus (MM) before and one year after treatment by meniscus repair and synovial mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation.

METHODS

Patients with a degenerative flap and radial MM tear that would generally be treated by meniscectomy were included. The patients ranged in age from 45 to 62 years and all underwent meniscus repair and synovium harvest at time 0. The digested synovium was cultured with autologous serum for 12 days, and an average of 4 × 10⁷ MSCs were transplanted at two weeks. A second-look arthroscopy was performed at 52 weeks (n = 6). The average duration of symptoms was 24 months. For flap tears, arthroscopic findings were quantified in terms of the presence, stability, and smoothness of the meniscus at each zone and area. The Lysholm score was evaluated throughout the 52 week follow-up.

RESULTS

Four patients with MM flap tears showed deficiencies in the central area at the posterior junctional zone before treatment, but this zone was completely restored to a stable and smooth condition in two patients and partially restored in the other two patients. The arthroscopy score for a flap tear at the central area of the posterior junctional zone was 0.3 ± 0.5 before treatment and 4.3 ± 2.1 after treatment. The score was significantly higher after treatment (p < 0.05, n = 4). The original radial MM tears in two patients were healed one year after treatment. Lysholm scores were significantly higher at 4 and 52 weeks after treatment than before treatment (n = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic findings for a degenerative flap and radial tear of the MM were improved at the central area of the posterior junctional zone one year after meniscus repair and MSC transplantation.

Biological augmentation of meniscal repair: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Orthopedic literature remains divided on the utility of biologic augmentation to optimize outcomes after isolated meniscal repair. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the clinical outcomes and re-operation rates of biologically augmented meniscal repairs.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were queried in October 2020 for published literature on isolated meniscal repair with biological augmentation. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias by two appraisal tools. Patient demographics, meniscal tear characteristics, surgical procedure, augmentation type, post-operative rehabilitation, patient reported outcome measures, and length of follow-up were recorded, reviewed, and analyzed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 3794 articles, 18 met inclusion criteria and yielded 537 patients who underwent biologic augmentation of meniscal repair. The biologically augmented repair rates were 5.8-27.0% with PRP augmentation, 0.0-28.5% with fibrin clot augmentation, 0.0-12.9% with marrow stimulation, and 0.0% with stem cell augmentation. One of seven studies showed lower revision rates with augmented meniscal repair compared to standard repair techniques, whereas five of seven found no benefit. Three of ten studies found significant functional improvement of biologically augmented repair versus standard repair techniques and six of ten studies found no difference. There was significant heterogeneity in methods for biologic preparation, delivery, and post-operative rehabilitation protocols.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported significant improvements in functional outcomes scores after repair with biological augmentation, though the benefit over standard repair controls is questionable. Revision rates after biologically augmented meniscal repair also appear similar to standard repair techniques. Clinicians should bear this in mind when considering biologic augmentation in the setting of meniscal repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Evidence-based rationale for treatment of meniscal lesions in athletes

Meniscal injuries in elite athletes are a common cause of missed game time and even have the potential to be career shortening. In this patient group, care must be paid not only to the pathology, but also to a player's contract status, time in the season, specific demands of his/her sport and position on the field, and future consequences. Successful treatment requires the clinician to understand the player's goals and needs, communicate effectively between all stakeholders, and a have knowledge of the challenges posed by the different types of meniscal tear seen in this population. Paramount is the distinction between injuries to the medial and lateral meniscus. Deficiency of the lateral meniscus, as a result of a tear or a meniscectomy, leads to frequent early problems and inexorably to chondral degeneration thereby affecting an athlete's ability to perform. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to repair the majority of lateral meniscal tears. Medial meniscal tears pose a more challenging treatment dilemma, as the success of partial meniscectomy in achieving reproducible, early return to play must be balanced against the long-term degenerative consequences. Many meniscal tears are correctly treated non-operatively.Level of evidence V.

Short-Term Outcomes After Treatment of Isolated Hidden Meniscal Ramp Lesions

Background:

Ramp lesions are encountered in 16% to 24% of all anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. However, isolated ramp lesions without a ruptured ACL have also been reported.

Purpose:

To evaluate outcomes after type 3 hidden ramp lesions without ACL rupture were treated with all-inside sutures passed through the standard anterior portal.

Study Design:

Case series, Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Included were 41 patients (26 female; 63.4%) with isolated type 3 ramp lesions who underwent surgery between January 2017 and January 2019. Patients with concomitant lateral meniscal injuries and revision meniscal surgeries were excluded. We retrospectively recorded patient age, sex, and body mass index (BMI), as well as follow-up periods, comorbidities, and postoperative and early midterm complications. The Lysholm, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were compared preoperatively to final follow-up. In addition, patients were classified as having either a sedentary or active lifestyle according to Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) criteria. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of the data, and the Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare preoperative and postoperative outcome scores. The Spearman test was employed to evaluate the correlation between patient variables.

Results:

The mean follow-up period was at 37.6 (range, 25-49) months. A total of 17 patients (41.46%) had a sedentary lifestyle based on SBRN criteria. All scores improved significantly from preoperatively to final follow-up (VAS, from 8.43 ± 1.53 to 2.34 ± 2.9; Lysholm, from 47.73 ± 17.02 to 85.37 ± 14.01; and IKDC, from 27.12 ± 14.81 to 85.32 ± 8.78; P < .001 for all). Although no significant relationship was established between patient activity level and postoperative Lysholm and IKDC scores, an inverse correlation was observed between BMI and Lysholm (r =–0.9906) and BMI and IKDC (r =–0.9402).

Conclusion:

Satisfactory postoperative clinical results were obtained in patients with type 3 ramp lesions not accompanied by ACL rupture who were treated with all-inside suturing through standard anterior portals.

Evaluation of placebo fidelity and trial design methodology in placebo-controlled surgical trials of musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

The number of placebo surgical trials on musculoskeletal conditions is increasing, but little is known about the quality of their design and methods. This review aimed to (1) assess the level of placebo fidelity (ie, degree to which the placebo control mimicked the index procedure) in placebo trials of musculoskeletal surgery, (2) describe the trials' methodological features using the adapted Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) checklist, and (3) describe each trial's characteristics. We searched 4 electronic databases from inception until February 18, 2021, for randomised trials of surgery that included a placebo control for any musculoskeletal condition. Protocols and full text were used to assess placebo fidelity (categorised as minimal, low, or high fidelity). The adapted 26-item ASPIRE checklist was also completed on each trial. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021202131. A total of 30,697 studies were identified in the search, and 22 placebo-controlled surgical trials of 2045 patients included. Thirteen trials (59%) included a high-fidelity placebo control, 7 (32%) used low fidelity, and 2 (9%) minimal fidelity. According to the ASPIRE checklist, included trials had good reporting of the "rationale and ethics" (68% overall) and "design" sections (42%), but few provided enough information on the "conduct" (13%) and "interpretation and translation" (11%) of the placebo trials. Most trials sufficiently reported their rationale and ethics, but interpretation and translation are areas for improvement, including greater stakeholder involvement. Most trials used a high-fidelity placebo procedure suggesting an emphasis on blinding and controlling for nonspecific effects.

Non-anatomic repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears to the posterior capsule provided favourable outcomes in middle-aged and older patients

PURPOSE

To describe a non-anatomic arthroscopic all-inside repair technique for middle-aged and older patients with medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) and to evaluate the short- to mid-term clinical and radiologic results. The hypothesis was that this procedure would yield good clinical outcome results and structural healing in middle- and older-aged patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study evaluating patients who had undergone MMPRT repair by suturing the meniscal root directly to the capsule, rather than by the transtibial technique, between 2013 and 2016. This all-inside repair technique was performed for patients with type II MMPRTs who were over 40 years old. Exclusion criteria included tibial osteotomy due to malalignment, concomitant multiple-ligament injuries and follow-up time less than 2 years. The Lysholm score, Tegner activity score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score were evaluated preoperatively and at the final follow-up. Medial meniscal extrusion, the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grades of the medial compartment, and the healing status of the medial meniscus root were assessed on magnetic resonance imaging preoperatively and at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (mean age 61.7 ± 7.9) were included; the mean follow-up duration was 46.2 ± 7.9 months. The mean Lysholm score significantly improved from 33.7 ± 20.9 preoperatively to 81.7 ± 19.9 at the final follow-up (p < 0.001), the median Tegner activity score improved from 1.0 (range 1-4) to 3.0 (range 2-4, p < 0.001), and the mean IKDC score improved from 20.1 ± 16.4 to 69.6 ± 16.2 (p < 0.001). On MRI, 9 (31%) cases had complete healing; 17 (59%) had partial healing; and 3 (10%) had failed healing (ICCs ≥ 0.92). Mean meniscal extrusion significantly increased from 2.3 ± 1.7 mm preoperatively to 3.5 ± 1.5 mm postoperatively (p < 0.001, ICCs ≥ 0.92).

CONCLUSION

Non-anatomic arthroscopic all-inside repair of MMPRTs to the posterior capsule yielded good to excellent clinical results and a high rate of healing in the medial meniscus root on MRI in middle-aged and older patients at short- to mid-term follow-up, despite increased meniscal extrusion. This method is an alternative to the transtibial pullout repair technique for treating MMPRTs in middle- and older-aged patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Biologic Augmentation during Meniscal Repair

We reviewed the literature regarding utility of biologic augmentation in meniscal repair. We hypothesized that the addition of biologic augmentation during meniscal repair improves postoperative knee function and reduces risk of repair failure. PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched. Included studies were clinical studies in humans, published in English, and reported use of biologic augmentation techniques in addition to meniscal repair (including platelet-rich plasma [PRP], fibrin clot, bone marrow stimulation, meniscal wrapping, and bioscaffolds) for treatment of knee meniscal tears. Outcome measures included repair failure, repeat knee arthroscopic surgery, and magnetic resonance imaging), visual analog scale for pain, the International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Lysholm's Knee Scoring Scale, and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Study quality was assessed using the modified Coleman methodology score. Nineteen studies reported repair of 1,092 menisci including six studies that investigated fibrin clot augmentation, five studies that investigated PRP augmentation, three studies that investigated bone marrow stimulation augmentation, two studies that used meniscal wrapping augmentation, and three studies that used other techniques. The level of evidence ranged from I to IV and mean modified Coleman methodology score was 43 (range: 17-69), with higher scores noted in studies completed in recent years. PRP and bone marrow stimulation augmentation appear to decrease risk of failure in patients undergoing isolated meniscal repair but do not improve knee symptom scores. Fibrin clot and trephination augmentation techniques do not have sufficient evidence to support decreased failure risk at this time. Meniscal wrapping augmentation and scaffold implantation augmentation appear to be an attractive option to meniscectomy in complicated tears that are not candidates for repair alone, but further confirmatory studies are needed to support initial data. Evidence supporting augmentation of meniscal repair is limited at this time but suggests that the highest likelihood for effectiveness of augmentation is in the settings of isolated meniscal repair or meniscal repairs that would normally not be amenable to repair.

Second-Look Arthroscopic Evaluation of Healing Rates After Arthroscopic Repair of Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

Evaluation of meniscal healing status after repair is important, as it allows the surgeon to inform patients whether they can increase their activities or return to sports.

Purpose:

To identify the healing rates after arthroscopic repair of meniscal tears via second-look arthroscopic evaluation.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases were conducted to identify relevant studies published before June 1, 2020. Studies were eligible for this meta-analysis if they provided data regarding healing status of the meniscus at second-look arthroscopy. Random-effects meta-analyses were generated to provide pooled meniscal healing estimates. We further performed subgroup analysis to investigate the healing rates of the meniscus under different situations.

Results:

A total of 41 studies with 1908 individuals were included in the study. The pooled analysis showed the complete healing rate was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67%-80%), the partial healing rate was 10% (95% CI, 6%-16%), and the failure rate was 12% (95% CI, 10%-15%) for arthroscopic repair of meniscal tears via second-look arthroscopic evaluation. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that no individual study affected the overall healing rate by >1%. Subgroup analysis found higher meniscal healing rates in patients with the following characteristics: age <40 years, male, body mass index <26, red-red tear location, tear in posterior horn, vertical tear, outside-in technique, repair concomitant with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, weight-restricted rehabilitation, and time interval from meniscal repair to second-look arthroscopy >12 months.

Conclusion:

In this systematic review, the complete healing rate was 74%, the partial healing rate was 10%, and the failure rate was 12% for arthroscopic repair of meniscal tears via second-look arthroscopic evaluation.

Indirect Magnetic Resonance Arthrography May Help Avoid Second Look Arthroscopy for Assessment of Healing After Bucket Handle Medial Meniscus Repairs: A Prospective Clinico-Radiological Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were: (1) to analyze the MRI healing rates of bucket-handle meniscus repair; (2) to compare the accuracy of assessment of meniscus healing for conventional MRI and Indirect Magnetic Resonance Arthrography (IMRA); and (3) to identify patients who may require second-look arthroscopy after meniscus repair.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational case series of thirty-seven patients with repaired bucket-handle medial meniscus tear with a minimum one year follow-up. Meniscus healing rates were assessed on direct MRI and IMRA using Henning's criteria. At the same time, patients' symptoms were evaluated according to Barrett's criteria and functional outcomes were recorded using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Osteoarthritis and Outcomes Score (KOOS) and Tegner-Lysholm scores. A further clinical review was performed 18 months after the imaging to assess the evolution of symptoms.

RESULTS

At a mean of 22.3 ± 7.8 months after the meniscus repair, 56.7% patients showed complete healing and 40.5% patients demonstrated incomplete repair healing on IMRA. 52% patients with complete healing and 40% patients with incomplete healing demonstrated meniscus symptoms. At the second clinical review, 19% patients with complete healing and 20% patients with incomplete healing had meniscus symptoms. There was no co-relation between symptoms, PROMs and healing on MRI.

CONCLUSION

Indirect MR arthrography offers distinct advantages over direct MRI for assessment of meniscus healing, especially in symptomatic patients. Patient-reported outcome measures and symptomatology are not co-related with the healing status of the meniscus and they resolve in the majority on longer follow-up. A more conservative approach guided by IMRA to assess meniscus healing will avoid early re-operations.

Return-to-Play and Rehabilitation Protocols Following Isolated Meniscal Repair-A Systematic Review

Purpose

To systematically review the literature and assess the reported rehabilitation protocols, return-to-play guidelines, and reported rates of return-to-play after meniscal repair.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies on meniscal repair. Studies were included if return-to-play data and/or rehabilitation protocols were reported. The rate and timing of return-to-play was assessed. The rehabilitation protocols were documented, in addition to when to start range of motion (ROM), full ROM, partial weight-bearing (WB), and full WB.

Results

Overall, 88 studies met our inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies, including 507 patients, cited a range of 71.2% to 100% of return-to-play, with 53.9% to 92.6% returning to the same/greater level, ranging between 3.3 and 10 months. There was considerable variability in the reported rehabilitation protocols, but the most frequently reported time to begin ROM exercises was within the first week (78.9%) and full ROM at 6 weeks (33.3%). Partial WB was typically begun during the first week (61.0%), and full WB between the fourth and sixth week (65.6%) postoperatively. Following surgery, time elapsed was the most commonly cited criteria for return-to-play (97.0%), with 6 months being the most common time point applied (46.9%). No study advised against returning to competitive or contact sports after meniscal repair.

Conclusions

In conclusion, there was a high rate of return-to-play following meniscal repair, with 60% of patients returning to the same level of play. However, there was considerable diversity in the reported rehabilitation protocols and insufficient reporting on return-to-play criteria in the literature. This demonstrates the need for further research and formulation of an evidence-based consensus statement for this patient population.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

The Biomechanical Performance of the Latest All-Inside Meniscal Repair Devices

PURPOSE

To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of recently introduced meniscal repair devices with a hand-tied, inside-out meniscal suture in a human meniscus model.

METHODS

In detached adult human menisci, vertical longitudinal cuts were created 3 mm from the synovial-meniscal junction, simulating a bucket-handle meniscal tear. Each cut was repaired using a single device. Group 1 received a vertical mattress suture of No. 2-0 OrthoCord; group 2, TrueSpan device with PEEK (polyether ether ketone) anchors containing No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture; group 3, TrueSpan device with biodegradable poly-lactide-co-glycolide (PLGA) anchors containing No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture; group 4, Meniscal Cinch II device; group 5, AIR meniscal repair device; and group 6, FasT-Fix 360 device. All samples were preloaded at 5 N and cycled 200 times between 5 and 20 N. The specimens that survived cyclic loading were destructively tested at 12.5 mm/s. Endpoints included maximum load, displacement, stiffness, and failure mode.

RESULTS

The mean failure loads were as follows: 95.8 N for OrthoCord suture, 87.1 N for TrueSpan with PEEK, 84.6 N for TrueSpan with PLGA, 48.6 N for Meniscal Cinch II, 72.3 N for AIR, and 68.1 N for FasT-Fix 360. Repairs performed with OrthoCord suture (P = .002) and both TrueSpan devices (P < .03) but not the FasT-Fix 360 device or AIR device were statistically significantly stronger than Meniscal Cinch II repairs. Mean cyclic displacement measured 1.1 mm for OrthoCord, 1.5 mm for TrueSpan with PEEK, 1.5 mm for TrueSpan with PLGA, 2.1 mm for Meniscal Cinch II, 1.1 mm for AIR, and 1.4 mm for FasT-Fix 360. The Meniscal Cinch II device showed more displacement than all other devices (P < .05). The FasT-Fix 360, AIR, and Meniscal Cinch II devices failed by anchor pullout from the peripheral meniscus. OrthoCord and both TrueSpan devices failed by suture pulling through the bucket-handle tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

OrthoCord suture is stronger than the AIR, FasT-Fix 360, and Meniscal Cinch II devices. The TrueSpan device with PEEK and TrueSpan device with PLGA are stronger than the Meniscal Cinch II device. The Meniscal Cinch II device failed during cyclic loading with greater cyclic displacement than the AIR device, FasT-Fix 360 device, OrthoCord, and TrueSpan device with PEEK. The Meniscal Cinch II, AIR, and FasT-Fix 360 devices failed by anchor pullout, whereas OrthoCord and both TrueSpan devices failed by suture pull-through.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Some newly introduced all-inside meniscal repair devices show inferior failure strength compared with earlier versions that might adversely impact clinical outcomes.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Augmentation for Isolated Arthroscopic Meniscal Repairs Leads to Significantly Lower Failure Rates: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

Background:

Studies have reported relatively high failure rates of isolated meniscal repairs. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been suggested as a way to increase growth factors that enhance healing.

Purpose:

To compare (1) meniscal repair failures and (2) patient-reported outcomes after isolated arthroscopic meniscal repair augmented with and without PRP.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Multiple databases were searched for studies that compared outcomes of isolated arthroscopic meniscal repair augmented with PRP versus without PRP in human patients. Failures and patient-reported outcome scores were reported for each study and compared between groups. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I² for each outcome measure before meta-analysis. Study methodological quality was analyzed. Continuous variable data were reported as mean and standard deviation from the mean. Categorical variable data were reported as frequency with percentage. All P values were reported with significance set at P < .05.

Results:

Five articles were analyzed (274 patients [110 with PRP and 164 without PRP]; 65.8% male; mean age, 29.1 ± 4.6 years; mean follow-up, 29.2 ± 22.1 months). The risk of meniscal repair failure ranged from 4.4% to 26.7% for PRP-augmented repairs and 13.3% to 50.0% for repairs without PRP. Meniscal repairs augmented with PRP had significantly lower failure rates than repairs without PRP (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90; P = .03). One of the 5 studies reported significantly higher outcomes in the PRP-augmented group versus the no-PRP group for the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (P < .05 for all). The remaining 4 studies reported no significant difference between groups with regard to outcomes for the IKDC, Lysholm knee scale, visual analog scale for pain, or Tegner activity level.

Conclusion:

Although the studies were of mostly of low quality, isolated arthroscopic meniscal repairs augmented with PRP led to significantly lower failure rates (10.8% vs 27.0%; odds ratio, 0.32; P = .03) as compared with repairs without PRP. However, most studies reported no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes.

Augmentation of Meniscal Repair With Platelet-Rich Plasma: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

Background:

The effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for meniscal repair (MR) is unclear, as current evidence is limited to small, mostly nonrandomized studies.

Purpose:

To systematically review the literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MR with PRP augmentation.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies (level of evidence 1-3) that compared the clinical efficacy of MR performed with versus without PRP. The search phrase used was platelet-rich plasma meniscus. Patients were assessed based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Lysholm score, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and treatment failure.

Results:

We identified 6 studies (2 studies with level 1 evidence; 4 studies with level 3 evidence) that met inclusion criteria, for a total of 309 patients undergoing MR with PRP (mean age, 31.9 years) and 445 patients without PRP augmentation (mean age, 29.6 years). The mean follow-up was 32.8 months (range, 12-72 months). Overall, 17.0% of PRP patients experienced MR failure compared with 22.1% of non-PRP patients. No differences in VAS, Lysholm, or subjective IKDC scores were found between groups except in 1 study, in which postoperative subjective IKDC scores were significantly better in the PRP group (P < .01). Another study found significantly better postoperative WOMAC scores among PRP patients, and 2 studies found significantly better KOOS subscores among PRP patients.

Conclusion:

There are a limited number of high-quality studies comparing outcomes and healing rates between patients undergoing MR with versus without PRP augmentation. Based on the available evidence, patients undergoing MR with PRP augmentation experience similar clinical outcomes at midterm follow-up when compared with conventional MR, and additional studies are needed to determine the efficacy of MR augmented with PRP.