Incisionless Partial Medial Meniscectomy

Partial meniscectomy using needle arthroscopy associated with significantly less pain and improved patient reported outcomes at two weeks after surgery: A comparison to standard knee arthroscopy

Purpose

to compare immediate post-operative pain and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after partial meniscectomy with needle (NA) vs. standard (SA) arthroscopy technique.

Methods

A retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients who underwent partial meniscectomy before and after adoption of a needle arthroscopic technique was performed. Meniscus repairs, root repairs, and those with ligamentous injuries were excluded. Total milligram morphine equivalents (MMEs) consumed, Visual analog scale (VAS) pain, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were compared pre-operatively and at 2 and 6-weeks postoperatively. Univariate analysis was used to compare results.

Results

Nineteen patients were in each group (NA: 10 females, SA: 11 females). Mean ± SD age (NA 42.8 ± 8.4 vs. SA 47.6 ± 10.4 years, p = 0.13) and body mass index (NA 31.4 ± 5.6 vs. SA 35.1 ± 5.4 m/kg2, p = 0.06) were not significantly different. Seventeen (89%) patients in both groups had medial meniscus tears of the posterior horn. Preoperative Outerbridge score was significantly greater in the SA group (3.4 vs. 1.8, p = 0.002); however, preoperative VAS pain (NA 6.1 ± 1.7 vs. SA 6.1 ± 1.8, p = 0.98) and KOOS pain (NA 44 ± 17% vs. SA 37 ± 12.5%, p = 0.20) were similar. Amount of arthroscopic fluid used was significantly greater in the SA vs. NA group (1.4 ± 0.7 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3 L, p < 0.0001), but tourniquet time was equivalent (NA 20 ± 6 vs.16 ± 6 min, p = 0.11). VAS pain scores (NA 1.0 ± 1.1 vs. SA 2.6 ± 1.5, p = 0.0014), KOOS pain (NA 79 ± 15% vs. 58 ± 19%, p = 0.0006), and Quality of Life (QOL) scores (NA 70 ± 22% vs. SA 43 ± 24%, p = 0.001) were significantly better at 2-weeks post-op in the N group. By 6 weeks post-op, all PROs including VAS pain and KOOS scores were similar between groups.

Conclusions

Adoption of a needle arthroscopic technique for partial meniscectomy was associated with significantly improved VAS and KOOS pain scores two-weeks post-operatively. Differences were not sustained at 6 weeks after surgery.

Level of evidence

III, Retrospective Comparison Study.

In-office needle arthroscopy is a cost-effective alternative for operating room diversion in medial meniscectomy: a financial analysis

BACKGROUND

In-office needle arthroscopy (IONA) has been described as a diagnostic alternative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for intra-articular pathology. However, few studies have analyzed its impact on cost and wait times when used as a therapeutic intervention. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact on cost and wait times associated with offering IONA for partial medial meniscectomy as an alternative to traditional operating room (OR) arthroscopy for patients with irreparable medial meniscus tears on MRI.

METHODS

Two models were created comparing the existing care pathway (current state) to a proposed future state utilizing IONA. Data sources were accounting data from an academically affiliated hospital in Canada and supplemented with literature values. A Monte Carlo simulation combined with DuPont analysis running 10,000 simulations was conducted to calculate the revenue, expenses, profits, and effect on surgical waitlists (i.e., throughput) between the states. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of patient preference and revision rates on profit and throughput. Two-sample Student's t test was performed (p < .05).

RESULTS

An average of 198 (standard deviation (SD) 31) patients underwent arthroscopic meniscectomy or repair each year from 2016 to 2020. The IONA revision rate was calculated as 20.3%. Compared to the current state, annual expenses in the IONA pathway were significantly reduced ($266,912.68 versus $281,415.23, p < .0001), while improving throughput by 21.2% (3.54%). Sensitivity analysis revealed 10% of patients need to select IONA over traditional OR arthroscopy with the revision rate remaining below 40% for the proposed state profit to be higher than the current state.

CONCLUSIONS

IONA is a cost-effective alternative to traditional OR arthroscopy in patients undergoing partial medial meniscectomy. The next steps are to assess patients' perceptions of IONA as an alternative to traditional OR arthroscopy, and to carry out clinical trials to determine the efficacy, patient-reported outcome metrics, and complications of IONA.

The role of outpatient needle arthroscopy in the diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal complaints: A systematic review of the Arthrex NanoScope

BACKGROUND

The aim was to review the literature regarding needle arthroscopy using the Arthrex NanoScope system and evaluate: (1) the diagnostic indications, utility, and efficacy compared to conventional methods, and (2) the therapeutic indications, safety, and reported outcomes.

METHODS

Searches of three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed) were conducted in November 2021 using MeSH terms: 'needle arthroscopy', 'human', 'in office arthroscopy', 'needle arthroscope', 'nanoscopic', 'surgery', 'nanoscope' and 'percutaneous arthroscopy'. The included studies were catalogued, quality-assessed using Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS), and analysed using the Cochrane data collection templates for randomised control trials (RCT) and non-randomised control trials (non-RCT). The majority of studies were non-numerical and were examined using qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

The search yielded 314 studies, 22 of which were included for analysis. MINORS assessment was applicable to four studies. Mean MINORS was 10.7/16 with the most frequent limitations being lack of unbiased endpoint or sample size calculation. The level of evidence ranged from level IV-V. Diagnostic and therapeutic indications were described in relation to the: knee (n = 10); shoulder (n = 6); foot/ankle (n = 3); elbow (n = 2), and miscellaneous (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Needle arthroscopy can augment the diagnostic process in patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints, and may provide benefits in terms of diagnostic accuracy, cost efficiency, timeliness of investigation, and a visually impactful patient-centred consultation. Therapeutic interventions are reported by a small number of pioneer groups who report some benefits over conventional arthroscopy. The available literature remains small and of low quality, and more evidence is needed with regards to patient selection, efficacy, safety, and cost.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V (based on the weakest study included in the Systematic Review).

Moving orthopaedic procedures out of the operating theatre:Outpatient needle arthroscopy can reduce cost & waste, and increase inpatient capacity compared to conventional knee arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

Needle arthroscopy (NA) is an emerging technique that could streamline pathways, facilitate timely care, and reduce service burden. The primary aim was to assess the practical and economic viability of an outpatient NA service. Secondary aims were to assess the relative costs and benefits compared to a conventional arthroscopy (CA) service.

METHODS

This service feasibility study was conducted between 2021-2022 in a high-volume national treatment centre. A NA pathway was established for patients with chronic soft tissue pathology or early degenerative knee disease. The pathway was evaluated in terms of: i) cost; ii) efficiency, and iii) waste production, and an assessment was conducted of the patient-related and service-related effects.

RESULTS

The cost of the NA pathway was £1555.20 per patient, compared to £2,351.53 for CA. Time to management was 45 days for NA versus 180 days for CA. The NA pathway involved two hospital attendances, whereas CA required a minimum of three. NA cases produced 1.4 kg of non-recyclable waste compared to 5.0 kg produced by CA. For every two cases managed by NA instead of CA, capacity for one additional obligate-inpatient procedure was created.

CONCLUSIONS

The NA pathway offers a technically and economically viable approach for the management of refractory knee symptoms in the context of chronic soft tissue or early degenerative disease. NA placed less demand on hospital resources, produced two-thirds less non-recyclable waste, and is amenable to a one-stop clinic approach. Clinical studies focused on objective and patient-reported outcome measures are required to assess clinical efficacy.

The Surgical Treatment of Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a degenerative condition affecting the whole joint with the underlying bone, representing a major source of pain, disability, and socioeconomic cost worldwide. Age is considered the strongest risk factor, albeit abnormal biomechanics, morphology, congenital abnormality, deformity, malalignment, limb-length discrepancy, lifestyle, and injury may further increase the risk of the development and progression of osteoarthritis as well. Pain and loss of function are the main clinical features that lead to treatment. Although early manifestations of osteoarthritis are amenable to lifestyle modification, adequate pain management, and physical therapy, disease advancement frequently requires surgical treatment. The symptomatic progression of osteoarthritis with radiographical confirmation can be addressed either with arthroscopic interventions, (joint) preservation techniques, or bone fusion procedures, whereas (joint) replacement is preferentially reserved for severe and end-stage disease. The surgical treatment aims at alleviating pain and disability while restoring native biomechanics. Miscellaneous surgical techniques for addressing osteoarthritis exist. Advanced computer-integrated surgical concepts allow for patient personalization and optimization of surgical treatment. The scope of this article is to present an overview of the fundamentals of conventional surgical treatment options for osteoarthritis of the human skeleton, with emphasis on arthroscopy, preservation, arthrodesis, and replacement. Contemporary computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery concepts are further elucidated.

Concurrent Needle and Standard Arthroscopy for Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction is a technically demanding procedure, particularly with respect to tibial footprint debridement and tibial tunnel placement, where iatrogenic damage to anatomic structures is a well reported complication and incorrect tunnel placement can have functional implications. Preparation of the tibial component often involves switching between 30° and 70° arthroscopes and frequent portal swapping and reorientation, which can be inefficient and time-consuming. As the technology and picture resolution of needle arthroscopy has improved, its clinical application has widened. This manuscript describes the use of needle arthroscopy-assisted arthroscopic PCL reconstruction for optimal visualization of the PCL tibial footprint using an accessory posterolateral portal, while obviating the need of both 30° and 70° arthroscopes.

Nanoscopic Distal Clavicle Resection

Acromioclavicular joint pathology such as osteoarthritis has historically been treated with either an open or arthroscopic distal clavicle resection. Over the years the trend has been toward more minimally invasive treatment options with the arthroscope. In this article we highlight the use of the nanoscope to visualize the resection which can be performed through a small percutaneous incision. The advantages of this technique include the use of smaller portals, which should lead to improved earlier outcomes, and less iatrogenic damage to the shoulder.

Nanoscopic Medial Meniscus Repair

Arthroscopic meniscus repair is one of the commonly used arthroscopic surgical procedures. Open treatment was the standard for meniscus repairs and recently arthroscopic all-inside treatment has become popular. Novel and more minimally invasive techniques to common arthroscopic procedures are paving the foundation to better patient outcomes. With the use of the NanoScope and nanoinstruments, we continue to develop new minimally invasive diagnostic and treatment techniques that do not require standard portals. The nanoscopic medial meniscus repair technique described here uses a less-invasive approach to a meniscus repair.

Editorial Commentary: Indications for Needle Arthroscopy as an Alternative to Magnetic Resonance Imaging: More to the Picture Than Meets the Eye

Needle arthroscopy (using a 1- to 1.9-mm diameter arthroscope) is not new, and new interest is a result of the expense and inconvenience of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including time out of work, prolonged diagnostic dilemmas, and finite advanced imaging resources. Improvements in the image quality with the modern needle arthroscope have made it a viable option for use as a diagnostic tool in the operative setting, and eventually, if surgeons are able to create strict criteria for proper diagnostic use of the needle arthroscope, it may become an excellent tool for in-office use despite financial or legal hurdles. Specific clinical scenarios for use of an diagnostic needle arthroscopy instead of an MRI (and typically immediately followed by therapeutic arthroscopy in the same setting) include (1) a patient with a clinically obvious meniscus tear with a locked knee, (2) a patient with an outdated but previously positive MRI with recurrent injury such as a recurrent shoulder or patella dislocations, (3) a patient who is ineligible for an MRI such as those with pacemakers or spinal implants who have clear and obvious clinical findings to suggest intra-articular pathology, and (4) a patient who is over the age of 50 years with positive rotator cuff testing after a shoulder dislocation in which I have a high degree of suspicion of a rotator cuff tear. In the future, we envision using multiple needle arthroscopes to provide simultaneous views from different angles during surgery and giving ourselves a 360° view. I envision an operating room in the future with multiple small needle scopes in joint and multiple viewing monitors providing a new 3-dimensional world of arthroscopy.

Accuracy measures of 1.5-tesla MRI for the diagnosis of ACL, meniscus and articular knee cartilage damage and characteristics of false negative lesions: a level III prognostic study

BACKGROUND

MRI is the most accurate imaging modality for diagnosing knee pathologies. However, there is uncertainty concerning factors predicting false negative MRI, such as meniscal tear patterns as well as patient factors. The aims of this study were to report 1.5-Tesla MRI accuracy of ACL, meniscus and articular cartilage damage and characterize false negative lesions.

METHODS

Two hundred eighteen consecutive knee arthroscopies performed in our institution between 2013 and 2016 and their respective prospectively-collected MRI reports were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age > 15 years-old, primary arthroscopy, 1.5-Tesla MRI performed at the same institution, and time interval MRI-surgery < 6 months. Exclusion criteria were revision arthroscopy and arthroscopic-assisted fracture fixation or multiligament surgery. Accuracy measures and Kappa coefficients were calculated comparing the MRI diagnosis to the arthroscopic findings. Moreover, the arthroscopic findings of false negative MRI were compared to the findings of true positive MRI using the Fisher-exact test. Pearson correlation was used for testing the correlation between MRI accuracy and patient age.

RESULTS

The highest accuracy was observed in medial meniscus and in ACL findings. For the medial meniscus sensitivity, specificity, agreement, and Kappa coefficient were 77, 92, 86%, and 0.7, and for the ACL these measures were 82, 97, 87%, and 0.73. MRI accuracy was lower in the lateral meniscus and articular cartilage with Kappa coefficient 0.42 and 0.3, respectively. More specifically, short peripheral tears in the posterior horn of the medial meniscus were characteristic of false negative findings compared to true positive findings of the MRI (p <  0.01). MRI accuracy correlated negatively compared to arthroscopic findings with patient age for the medial meniscus (r = - 0.21, p = 0.002) and for articular cartilage damage (r = - 0.45, p <  0.001).

CONCLUSION

1.5-Tesla MRI will accurately diagnose ACL and medial meniscal tears and can reliably complete the diagnostic workup following physical examination, particularly in young adults. This modality however is not reliable for diagnosing short peripheral tears at the posterior horn of the medial meniscus and partial thickness articular cartilage lesion of the femoral condyles. For these lesions, definitive diagnosis may require cartilage-specific MRI sequences or direct arthroscopic evaluation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, Level III.