Short-Term but Not Long-Term Knee Symptoms and Functional Improvements of Tissue Engineering Strategy for Meniscus Defects: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

Addressing meniscal deficiency part 2: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meniscal scaffold-based approaches

Purpose

Meniscal injuries are common in knee surgery and often require preservation techniques to prevent secondary osteoarthritis. Despite advancements in repair techniques, some patients undergo partial meniscectomy, which can lead to postmeniscectomy syndrome. To address these challenges, meniscal substitution techniques like scaffolds have been developed. However, a comprehensive synthesis of the existing evidence through an umbrella review is lacking.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool.

Results

A total of 17 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Most studies focused on the use of collagen-based scaffolds, with fewer studies evaluating synthetic scaffolds. The majority of studies (52.9%) were rated as having 'Critically Low' overall confidence, with only one study (5.9%) rated as 'High' confidence and most studies exhibiting methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes and lack of long-term follow-up. Despite these limitations, the majority of studies reported positive short-term outcomes, including pain relief and functional improvement, following scaffold implantation. However, some studies noted a relatively high failure rate. Radiographically, outcomes also varied, with some studies reporting morphological deterioration of the implant seen on MRI, while others noted possible chondroprotective effects.

Conclusions

Meniscal scaffold-based approaches show promise in the management of meniscal deficiency; however, the current evidence is limited by methodological shortcomings. One notable gap in the literature is the lack of clear guidelines for patient selection and surgical technique. Future research should focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up to further elucidate the benefits and indications of these techniques in clinical practice. Additionally, efforts should be made to develop consensus guidelines to standardize the use of meniscal scaffolds and improve patient outcomes. Despite limited availability, synthesizing the literature on meniscal scaffold-based approaches is crucial for understanding research, guiding clinical decisions and informing future directions.

Level of Evidence

Level IV.

Editorial Commentary: Tissue-Engineered Meniscal Scaffolds and Implants Show Promising Short-Term Outcomes While Long-Term Comparison With Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Is Pending

Because of the prevalence of meniscal injuries and the difficulty treating irreparable tears and large defects, there has been increasing research and resultant engineering strategies over the past 20 years that have resulted in development of various meniscal scaffolds and meniscal implants. At this time, meniscal allograft transplant may be the "standard" consideration for the nonarthritis, meniscal deficient, stable, and properly aligned painful knee, but challenges include availability, preoperative planning and sizing, costs, and logistics. Newer tissue-engineered implants can minimize these concerns, and recent systematic review shows these may provide short-term improvement in knee pain and function. However, studies demonstrating long-term improvements remain pending, and it is unclear whether these implants will result in outcomes better than meniscal allograft transplant.