Less improvement following meniscal repair compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: a prospective cohort study of patient-reported outcomes in 150 young adults at 1- and 5-years' follow-up

Osteoarthritis Development Following Meniscectomy vs. Meniscal Repair for Posterior Medial Meniscus Injuries: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to evaluate critically and synthesize the existing literature on the outcomes of meniscectomy versus meniscal repair for posterior medial meniscus injuries, with a focus on osteoarthritis (OA) development. We sought to assess the incidence of OA following both treatment modalities, compare functional outcomes post-treatment, and identify factors influencing treatment choice, providing evidence-based recommendations for clinical decision-making. A comprehensive search strategy was employed across PubMed, Scopus, and Embase up until December 2023, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes included OA development, functional knee outcomes, and quality of life measures. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 298 patients. The systematic review revealed a significant association between meniscal repair and decreased progression of OA compared to meniscectomy. Meniscectomy patients demonstrated a 51.42% progression rate towards OA, significantly higher than the 21.28% observed in meniscal repair patients. Functional outcomes, as measured by the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, were notably better in the repair group, with average scores of 74.68 (IKDC) and 83.78 (Lysholm) compared to 67.55 (IKDC) and 74.56 (Lysholm) in the meniscectomy group. Furthermore, the rate of complete healing in the repair group was reported at 71.4%, as one study reported, indicating a favorable prognosis for meniscal preservation. However, these pooled data should be interpreted with consideration to the heterogeneity of the analyzed studies. Meniscal repair for posterior medial meniscus injuries is superior to meniscectomy in preventing OA development and achieving better functional outcomes and quality of life post-treatment. These findings strongly suggest the adoption of meniscal repair as the preferred treatment modality for such injuries, emphasizing the need for a paradigm shift in clinical practice towards preserving meniscal integrity to optimize patient outcomes.

Meniscectomy is associated with a higher rate of osteoarthritis compared to meniscal repair following acute tears: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Meniscal tears are common and may impair knee function and biomechanics. This meta-analysis compared meniscal repair versus resection in patients with symptomatic meniscal tears in terms of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), joint width, surgical failure, and rate of progression to osteoarthritis (OA) at conventional radiography.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In August 2023, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. Two reviewers independently performed the analysis and a methodological quality assessment of the included studies. All the clinical investigations which compared repair versus resection of meniscal tears were accessed.

RESULTS

Data from 20 studies (31,783 patients) were collected. The mean BMI was 28.28 ± 3.2 kg/m2, and the mean age was 37.6 ± 14.0 years. The mean time elapsed from injury to surgery was 12.1 ± 10.2 months and the mean medial joint width was 4.9 ± 0.8 mm. Between studies comparability at baseline was found in age, women, BMI, time from injury to surgery and length of the follow-up, PROMs, medial joint width, and stage of OA. The resection group demonstrated a greater Lysholm score (P = 0.02). No difference was found in the International Knee Documentation Committee (P = 0.2). Nine studies reported data on the rate of failures at a mean of 63.00 ± 24.7 months. No difference was found between the two groups in terms of persistent meniscal symptoms (P = 0.8). Six studies reported data on the rate of progression to total knee arthroplasty at a mean of 48.0 ± 14.7 months follow-up. The repair group evidenced a lower rate of progression to knee arthroplasty (P = 0.0001). Six studies reported data on the rate of advanced knee OA at a mean of 48.0 ± 14.7 months of follow-up. The repair group evidenced a lower rate of advanced knee OA (P = 0.0001). No difference was found in the mean joint space width (P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Meniscal repair is associated with a lower progression to knee osteoarthritis at approximately six years of follow-up compared to partial meniscectomy. No difference in PROMs, medial joint width, and failures were evidenced.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, meta-analysis.

Blood flow restriction added to usual care exercise in patients with early weight bearing restrictions after cartilage or meniscus repair in the knee joint: a feasibility study

PURPOSE

Blood flow restriction - low load strength training (BFR-LLST) is theoretically superior to traditional heavy strength training when rehabilitating patients who cannot heavily load tissues following surgery. The main purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of BFR-LLST added to usual care exercise early after cartilage or meniscus repair in the knee joint.

METHODS

We included 42 patients with cartilage (n = 21) or meniscus repair (n = 21) of the knee joint. They attended 9 weeks of BFR-LLST added to a usual care exercise program at an outpatient rehabilitation center. Outcome measures were assessed at different time points from four (baseline) to 26 weeks postoperatively and included adherence, harms, knee joint and thigh pain, perceived exertion, thigh circumference (muscle size proxy), isometric knee-extension strength, self-reported disability and quality of life.

RESULTS

On average, patients with cartilage or meniscus repair completed > 84% of the total BFR-LLST supervised sessions. Thirty-eight patients reported 146 adverse events of which none were considered serious. No decrease in thigh circumference or exacerbation of knee joint or quadriceps muscle pain of the operated leg was found in either group during the intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

BFR-LLST added to usual care exercise initiated early after cartilage or meniscus repair seems feasible and may prevent disuse thigh muscle atrophy during a period of weight bearing restrictions. Harms were reported, but no serious adverse events were found. Our findings are promising but need replication using a RCT-design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03371901 , preprint (open access):  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.31.22272398v1.

Patient’s subjective knee function 3-5 years following partial meniscectomy or meniscus repair compared to a normal population: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose

Evaluate patient-reported knee function after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) and meniscus suture repair in two different age cohorts compared with a normal population.

Method

Arthroscopic meniscus surgery was performed on 421 patients at Skåne University Hospital from 2010 to 2014, with a mean (SD) follow-up of 4.2 (1.4) years. Patients and controls were divided into two age cohorts; 18–34 years (younger) and 35–54 years (middle-aged) as well as according to surgery performed; either solely meniscus surgery or with concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The outcome is measured with the five subscales of the Knee and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

Results

No significant difference in outcome after all studied types of meniscus surgeries between younger-aged and middle-aged patients.

Younger patients with APM or meniscus suture repair, with or without, ACLR score lower than the normal population in all subscales of KOOS (p<0.001), except in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) for meniscus suture patients.

Middle-aged patients with APM score lower in all subscales than the normal population (p≤0.009). Those with meniscus suture repair score lower than the normal population only for the subscales Sport/Rec and quality of life (p<0.001).

Both younger-aged and middle-aged patients achieve better KOOS values after meniscus suture repair and ACLR than after all other combinations of surgery.

Conclusion

Patients with meniscus injuries do not reach the same KOOS score as the normal population, irrespective of age or type of meniscus surgery performed. However, combined with ACLR in younger-aged and middle-aged patients, meniscus suture gives a better subjective outcome than isolated meniscus surgery.

Current Controversies in Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the continued controversy among orthopedic surgeons regarding the indications and benefits of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), this review summarizes the current literature, indications, and outcomes of partial meniscectomy to treat symptomatic meniscal tears.

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients with symptomatic meniscal tears, the location and tear pattern play a vital role in clinical management. Tears in the central white-white zone are less amenable to repair due to poor vascularity. Patients may be indicated for APM or non-surgical intervention depending on the tear pattern and symptoms. Non-surgical management for meniscal pathology includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), physical therapy (PT), and intraarticular injections to reduce inflammation and relieve symptoms. There have been several landmark multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the outcomes of APM compared to PT or sham surgery in symptomatic degenerative meniscal tears. These most notably include the 2013 Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) Trial, the 2018 ESCAPE trial, and the sham surgery-controlled Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study (FIDELITY), which failed to identify substantial benefits of APM over nonoperative treatment or even placebo surgery. Despite an abundance of literature exploring outcomes of APM for degenerative meniscus tears, there is little consensus among surgeons about the drivers of good outcomes following APM. It is often difficult to determine if the presenting symptoms are secondary to the meniscus pathology or the degenerative disease in patients with concomitant OA. A central tenet of managing meniscal pathology is to preserve tissue whenever possible. Most RCTs show that exercise therapy may be non-inferior to APM in degenerative tears if repair is not possible. Given this evidence, patients who fail nonoperative treatment should be counseled regarding the risks of APM before proceeding to surgical management.

Early Surgery or Exercise and Education for Meniscal Tears in Young Adults

BACKGROUND: Surgery is commonly used to treat meniscal tears; however, to our knowledge, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared surgery with nonsurgical alternatives in young adults. We hypothesized that early meniscal surgery would be superior to a strategy of exercise and education with the option of surgery later if needed. METHODS: In this pragmatic parallel-group RCT, we enrolled young adults (18-40 years of age) with magnetic resonance imaging–verified meniscal tears eligible for surgery from seven Danish hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgery (partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair) or 12-week supervised exercise therapy and education with the option of surgery later if needed. The primary outcome was the difference in change from baseline to 12 months in the mean score of four Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) subscales covering pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life, ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). RESULTS: We enrolled 121 young adults (mean age, 29.7 years; 28% were female). In total, 107 participants (88%) completed the 12-month follow-up; 16 participants (26%) from the exercise group crossed over to surgery, while 8 (13%) from the surgery group did not undergo surgery. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistically significant difference in change between groups from baseline to 12 months in KOOS4 scores (19.2 vs. 16.4 in the surgery vs. exercise groups; adjusted mean difference, 5.4 [95% confidence interval, −0.7 to 11.4]). No difference in serious adverse events was observed (four vs. seven in the surgery and exercise groups, respectively; P=0.40). Per-protocol and as-treated analyses yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that among young, active adults with meniscal tears, a strategy of early meniscal surgery is not superior to a strategy of exercise and education with the option of later surgery. Both groups experienced clinically relevant improvements in pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months, and one of four from the exercise group eventually had surgery. (Funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02995551.)