Staged meniscal allograft transplantation as a biologic treatment of the meniscal deficient knee: A prospective case series of 26 patients with maximum 88-month follow-up

Meniscal Allograft versus Synthetic Graft in Treatment Outcomes of Meniscus Repair: A Mini-review and Meta-analysis

Meniscal injuries are highly correlated with osteoarthritis (OA) onset and progression. Although meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is a therapeutic option to restore meniscal anatomy, a shortage of donor material and the donor-derived infectious risk may be concerns in clinics. This review summarizes the literature reporting meniscus repair status in preclinical models and clinical practice using allografts or synthetic grafts. The advantages and limitations of biodegradable polymer-based meniscal scaffolds, applied in preclinical studies, are discussed. Then, the long-term treatment outcomes of patients with allografts or commercial synthetic scaffolds are compared. A total of 47 studies are included in our network meta-analysis. Compared with the meniscal allografts, the commercial synthetic products significantly improved clinical treatment outcomes in terms of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, and Lysholm scores. In addition, development strategies for the next generation of novel synthetic scaffolds are proposed through optimization of structural design and fabrication, and selection of cell sources, external stimuli, and active ingredients. This review may inspire researchers and surgeons to design and fabricate clinic-orientated grafts with improved treatment outcomes.

No Differences in 2-Year Reoperation Rates for Meniscus Allograft Transplant With Concomitant Cartilage Restoration or Osteotomy: A National Database Study

PURPOSE

To investigate reoperation rates after meniscus allograft transplant (MAT), comparing rates with and without concomitant articular cartilage and osteotomy procedures using a national insurance claims database.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent MAT from 2010 to 2021 with a minimum 2-year follow-up using the PearlDiver database. Using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes, we identified patients who underwent concomitant procedures including chondroplasty or microfracture, cartilage restoration defined as osteochondral graft or autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), or osteotomy. Univariate logistic regressions identified risk factors for reoperation. Reoperations were classified as knee arthroplasty, interventional procedures, or diagnostic or debridement procedures.

RESULTS

The study included 750 patients with an average age of 29.6 years (interquartile range: 21.0-36.8) and average follow-up time was 5.41 years (SD: 2.51). Ninety-day, 2-year, and all-time reoperation rates were 1.33%, 14.4%, and 27.6%, respectively. MAT with cartilage restoration was associated with increased reoperation rate at 90 days (odds ratio: 4.88; 95% confidence interval: 1.38-19.27; P = .015); however, there was no significant difference in reoperation rates at 2 years or to the end of follow-up. ACI had increased reoperation rates at 90 days (odds ratio: 6.95; 95% confidence interval: 1.45-25.96; P = .006), with no difference in reoperation rates 2 years postoperatively or to the end of follow-up. Osteochondral autograft and allograft were not associated with increased reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, 14.4% of patients had a reoperation within 2 years of MAT. Nearly 1 in 4 patients undergoing MAT had concomitant cartilage restoration, showing that it is commonly performed on patients with articular cartilage damage. Concomitant osteochondral autograft, osteochondral allograft, chondroplasty, microfracture, and osteotomy were not associated with any significant difference in reoperation rates. ACI was associated with increased reoperation rates at 90 days, but not later.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

Midterm Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Revision Lateral Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

Background

It is unknown whether the outcomes achieved in the early period after revision lateral meniscal allograft transplantation (RLMAT) are maintained through the midterm period.

Purpose

To evaluate the midterm clinical and radiological results of patients who underwent RLMAT.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

We reviewed the outcomes of 19 RLMATs in 18 patients with at least 5 years of follow-up data. The mean follow-up period was 6 ± 1.1 years (range, 5-8.5 years). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the modified Lysholm score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, and the Tegner activity level. Radiographic progression of arthritis was measured by the absolute and relative joint space widths on 45° of knee flexion posteroanterior radiographs preoperatively, 1 year postoperatively, and at the latest follow-up.Failure was defined as meniscocapsular separation, removal, or tear of more than half of the meniscal allograft on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Of the 18 patients, 3 underwent ≥2 RLMATs. The survival rate was evaluated according to the number of revision surgeries.

Results

For knees with an intact meniscus transplant at the final follow-up, the modified Lysholm and IKDC scores were significantly improved compared with preoperatively, but the Tegner activity level was unchanged. No significant differences were found in the absolute and relative joint space widths postoperatively. There were 6 failures within 3 years after RLMAT; the overall 5-year survival rate was 68.4% (13/19 knees). All failed knees showed bucket-handle tear patterns on MRI due to meniscocapsular healing failure. The survival rate decreased as the number of RLMATs increased-73.3% for a first RLMAT (n = 15 knees), 66.7% for a second RLMAT (n = 3 knees), and 0% for a third RLMAT (n = 1 knee). Midterm MRIs of 8 well-healed RLMATs showed evidence of meniscal degeneration; nonetheless, this did not affect clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

The midterm results of RLMATs demonstrated a 5-year survival rate of 68.4% and positive clinical and radiological outcomes for failed MATs despite unimproved activity levels. Inadequate meniscocapsular healing was the leading cause of failure, and it needs to be carefully considered when performing RLMATs.

Securing Transplanted Meniscal Allografts Using Bone Plugs Results in Lower Risks of Graft Failure and Reoperations: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Meniscal allograft transplant (MAT) is an important treatment option for young patients with deficient menisci; however, there is a lack of consensus on the optimal method of allograft fixation.

HYPOTHESIS

The various methods of MAT fixation have measurable and significant differences in outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A single-arm meta-analysis of studies reporting graft failure, reoperations, and other clinical outcomes after MAT was performed. Studies were stratified by suture-only, bone plug, and bone bridge fixation methods. Proportionate rates of failure and reoperation for each fixation technique were pooled with a mixed-effects model, after which reconstruction of relative risks with confidence intervals was performed using the Katz logarithmic method.

RESULTS

A total of 2604 patients underwent MAT. Weighted mean follow-up was 4.3 years (95% CI, 3.2-5.6 years). During this follow-up period, graft failure rates were 6.2% (95% CI, 3.2%-11.6%) for bone plug fixation, 6.9% (95% CI, 4.5%-10.3%) for suture-only fixation, and 9.3% (95% CI, 6.2%-13.9%) for bone bridge fixation. Transplanted menisci secured using bone plugs displayed a lower risk of failure compared with menisci secured via bone bridges (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .02). Risks of failure were not significantly different when comparing suture fixation to bone bridge (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06; P = .12) and bone plugs (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02; P = .64). Allografts secured using bone plugs were at a lower risk of requiring reoperations compared with those secured using sutures (RR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.95; P < .001), whereas allografts secured using bone bridges had a higher risk of reoperation when compared with those secured using either sutures (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19-1.38; P < .001) or bone plugs (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.32-1.51; P < .001). Improvements in Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were comparable among the different groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that bone plug fixation of transplanted meniscal allografts carries a lower risk of failure than the bone bridge method and has a lower risk of requiring subsequent operations than both suture-only and bone bridge methods of fixation. This suggests that the technique used in the fixation of a transplanted meniscal allograft is an important factor in the clinical outcomes of patients receiving MATs.

Examining the Efficacy of Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Repair: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Biomechanical and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Medial meniscus posterior root (MMPR) injuries accelerate the progression of osteoarthritis. While partial meniscectomy was once considered the gold standard for treatment, meniscus root repair has become increasingly utilized with reported improvements in clinical and biomechanical outcomes.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of biomechanical outcomes and a meta-analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes after MMPR repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2021 for studies reporting biomechanical, clinical, and radiographic outcomes after MMPR repair. Biomechanical studies were assessed for main results and conclusions. Data including study characteristics, cohort demographics, and outcomes were extracted. Included clinical studies were analyzed with a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions for binary outcomes or continuous outcomes for mean differences between preoperative and postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis for studies reporting repair outcomes with concomitant high tibial osteotomy (HTO) was performed where appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 13 biomechanical studies were identified and reported an overall improvement in mean and peak contact pressures after MMPR repair. There were 24 clinical studies, consisting of 876 patients (877 knees), identified, with 3 studies (106 knees) reporting outcomes with concomitant HTO. The mean patient age was 57.1 years (range, 23-74 years), with a mean follow-up of 27.7 months (range, 2-64 months). Overall, clinical outcomes (Lysholm, Hospital for Special Surgery, International Knee Documentation Committee, visual analog scale for pain, Tegner, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score scores) were noted to improve postoperatively compared with preoperatively, with improved Lysholm scores in patients undergoing concomitant HTO versus MMPR repair alone. Meniscal extrusion was not significantly improved after MMPR repair compared with preoperative measurements. The progression in Kellgren-Lawrence grades from grade 0 to grades 1 to 3 occurred in 5.9% (21/354) of patients after repair, with no patients progressing from grades 1 to 3 to grade 4.

CONCLUSION

MMPR repair generally improved biomechanical outcomes and led to improved patient-reported outcomes with greater improvements noted in patients undergoing concomitant HTO. Repair did not significantly improve meniscal extrusion, while only 5.9% of patients were noted to progress to low-grade osteoarthritis. The high level of heterogeneity in the included biomechanical and clinical investigations emphasizes the need for more well-designed studies that evaluate outcomes after MMPR repair.