Long-term National Trends of Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair and Debridement

Survey Results Concerning Current Trends in Meniscus Repair Indications and Preferences from Members of the Pediatric Research in Sports Medicine (PRiSM) Society

Meniscus repair has increased in frequency, especially among surgeons who focus on youth sports injuries. The aim of this study was to determine current trends in meniscus repair among a specific subset of meniscus repair surgeons. A cross-sectional survey utilizing several clinical vignettes was administered to orthopaedic surgeon members of the Pediatric Research in Sports Medicine (PRiSM) Society to investigate surgeon experience and training, number of meniscus repair procedures performed, and surgical and rehabilitation preferences. A statistical analysis of the responses was performed to determine associations between years in practice or type of fellowship training and the number of meniscus repair procedures performed, surgical indications, and rehabilitation preferences. The response rate to various questions ranged from 61.5 (59/96) to 63.5% (61/96). In all vignettes, a majority favored repair as well as some degree of weight-bearing and range-of-motion restrictions. Surgeons who had been in practice for 6 to 10 years performed significantly more meniscus repairs per year than those who had been in practice for greater than 20 years (p = 0.009) and those who had been in practice for 0 to 5 years (p = 0.05). Surgeons who had been in practice for greater than 20 years performed a significantly higher percentage of meniscectomies relative to meniscus repairs, compared with those in practice for 0 to 5 years (p = 0.002) or 6 to 10 years (p = 0.0003). When surgeons were grouped into those with less than 10 years of experience and those with greater than 10 years of experience, the former group performed a significantly higher number of meniscus repairs relative to meniscectomies than the latter group of surgeons (p < 0.0001). Less experienced surgeons are more likely to perform meniscus repair than meniscectomy, but all surgeons surveyed had a general preference for repair in all clinical vignettes. Repair technique preferences as well as rehabilitation protocols varied widely among surgeons.

Degenerative Meniscus Tears Treated Nonoperatively With Platelet-Rich Plasma Yield Variable Clinical and Imaging Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Purpose

To perform a systematic review on clinical and radiologic outcomes for meniscus tears treated nonoperatively with platelet-rich plasma (PRP).

Methods

A literature search was performed according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using keywords and Boolean operators in SCOPUS, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials in April 2023. Inclusion criteria were limited to Level I to IV human studies reporting on outcomes of meniscus tears treated nonoperatively with PRP.

Results

A total of 6 studies, consisting of 184 patients, were identified. There was 1 Level I study and 5 Level IV studies. Mean patient age was 47.8 ± 7.9 years, with 62% (n = 114/184) being female. The medial meniscus was treated in 95.7% (n = 157/164) of patients. Mean follow-up ranged from 75.9 days to 31.9 months. Meniscus tears were generally described as chronic, degenerative, or intrasubstance. In 4 studies, magnetic resonance imaging revealed variable improvement in meniscus grade with complete healing in 0% to 44% of patients and partial healing in 0% to 40% of patients. Four of 5 studies reported significant statistical improvement in pain from baseline to final follow-up. Studies reporting on clinical outcomes showed significant improvements Lysholm score (2 studies), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score total score (2 studies), and Tegner score (1 study). Successful return to sport occurred in 60% to 100% of patients. Two studies reported that most patients were either very satisfied or satisfied following treatment.

Conclusions

The use of PRP injections for the treatment of meniscus tears led to variable results based on postoperative magnetic resonance evaluation and improvements in clinical outcomes, although the clinical significance remains unclear. The heterogeneity of PRP protocols, short-term follow-up, and lack of comparative studies limit findings.

Level of Evidence

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

Meniscal Radial Tears: A Classification System Based on Tear Morphology

Appropriate management of radial meniscal tears is complex, with continued efforts focused on optimizing diagnostic methods for identification to help dictate treatment, especially as surgical indications for repair have expanded, coupled with improvements in surgical techniques and instrumentation. Currently, no standardized classification system for radial meniscal tears exists, limiting the ability to accurately characterize injury patterns and guide surgical decision-making.

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.

Isolated meniscus allograft transplantation with soft-tissue technique effectively reduces knee laxity in the presence of previous meniscectomy: In-vivo navigation of 18 consecutive cases

OBJECTIVES

Although meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is a well-established procedure with satisfactory clinical results, limited in vivo kinematic information exists on the effect of medial and lateral MAT performed in the clinical setting. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the biomechanical effect of arthroscopic isolated medial and lateral MAT with a soft-tissue fixation on pre- and post-operative knee laxity using a surgical navigation system.

METHODS

18 consecutive patients undergoing MAT (8 medial, 10 lateral) were enrolled. A surgical navigation system was used to quantify the anterior-posterior displacement at 30 and 90 degrees of knee flexion (AP30 and AP90), the varus-valgus rotation at 0 and 30 degrees of knee flexion (VV0 and VV30) and the dynamic laxity on the pivot-shift test (PS), which was determined through the anterior displacement of the lateral tibial compartment (APlat) and posterior acceleration of the lateral tibial compartment during tibial reduction (ACC). Data from laxity before and after MAT were compared through paired t-test (p ​< ​0.05).

RESULTS

After medial MAT, there was a significant decrease in tibial translation of 3.1 ​mm (31%; p ​= ​0.001) for AP30 and 2.3 ​mm (27%; p ​= ​0.020) for AP90, a significant difference of 2.5° (50%; p ​= ​0.002) for VV0 and 1.7° (27%; p ​= ​0.012) for VV30. However, medial MAT did not determine any reduction in the PS kinematic data. Lateral MAT determined a significant decrease in the tibial translation of 2.5 ​mm (38%; p ​< ​0.001) for AP30 and 1.9 ​mm (34%; p ​= ​0.004) for AP90 as well as a significant difference of 3.4° (59%; p ​< ​0.001) for VV0 and of 1.7° (23%; p ​= ​0.011) for VV30. There was also a significant reduction of the PS of 4.4 ​mm (22%; p ​= ​0.028) for APlat and 384.8 ​mm/s2 (51%; p ​= ​0.005) for ACC.

CONCLUSION

MAT with soft-tissue fixation results in a significant laxity reduction in an in-vivo setting. Medial MAT improved knee kinematics by determining a significant reduction with particular emphasis on AP translation and VV manoeuvre. Conversely, Lateral MAT determined a massive reduction of the PS and a mild decrease of the AP translation and VV manoeuvre.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

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.

The Proportion of Meniscus Tears Considered Repairable, and Thus Repaired, Increased During a Single Surgeon's Practice of 20 Years

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate practice patterns of a single surgeon with respect to meniscectomy and meniscal repair over a 20-year period at a single institution.

METHODS

A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out by reviewing the surgical data from the past 20 years (2002-2021) of patients who underwent arthroscopic primary meniscal surgery. Age, sex, knee and meniscus affected, morphology of the meniscal tear, meniscal radial location, location on the axial plane, tissue quality, and associated injuries were recorded. An analysis of the evolution of the characteristics of the meniscal lesions was performed according to the presence of degenerative tissue, the repairability of the lesion, and the treatment performed. Categorical data were represented in contingency tables and compared using the χ2 test for significance of differences, which was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

In total, 1,892 cases were included. A decrease in degenerative meniscal tears was found, from 63.2 in 2002 to 2006 to 9.7% in 2017 to 2021 (P < .001), while repairable tears increased from 1.6% to 82.3% P < .001); in the same periods, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy procedures declined from 75.7% to 17.7% (P < .001) while meniscal repair increased from 0.4% to 81.3% (P < .001). All types of tears increased significantly their repairability, although longitudinal tears, root tears, and ramp lesions showed the highest possibilities for repair.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, a drastic change in the attitude toward meniscal preservation in the past 20 years was observed, with a large increase in the proportion of tears considered repairable found in primary arthroscopic surgery (to 80% of cases) and a decrease in degenerative meniscus tears (to less than 10%).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In the past 2 decades, arthroscopic knee surgery has evolved such that more meniscus tears are deemed repairable, and fewer tears considered degenerative are indicated for arthroscopy.

Meniscus repair via collagen matrix wrapping and bone marrow injection: clinical and biomolecular study

PURPOSE

The functional outcomes of arthroscopic matrix-based meniscus repair (AMMR) in patients two and five years after the treatment clearly show that the use of the collagen matrix and bone marrow aspirate creates favorable biological conditions for meniscus healing. This study not only provides ten follow-up results but also investigates biomolecular mechanisms governing the regenerative process.

METHODS

Case series was based on data collected from patients who underwent AMMR procedure, starting with preoperatively through two-year and five-year till ten-year follow-up. The outcomes are presented as IKDC and the Lysholm subjective scores as well as the imaging results. Biomolecular investigation of the membranes utilized in the AMMR procedure include DNA content analysis, cell viability and proliferation study of bone marrow and bone marrow concentrate-derived cells, and cytokine array performed on monocytes cultured on the membranes.

CONCLUSION

Data collected from patients who underwent AMMR procedure, starting with pre-operatively through two year and five year till ten year follow-up, indicate the possibility for long-term, stable meniscus preservation. Outcomes are manifested with a visible improvement of the IKDC and the Lysholm subjective scores as well as in the imaging results. The type of the meniscal tear or complexity of the knee injury (isolated AMMR vs. AMMR + ACL) did not affect the clinical outcomes. The study highlighted the role of the membrane in facilitating cell adhesion and proliferation. Additionally, several cytokines were selected as potentially crucial products of the membrane vs. monocyte interactions, driving the tissue regeneration and remodeling. Interestingly, thresholds of what constitutes a safe and well-decellularized membrane according to relevant literature have been significantly breached, but ultimately did not elicit detrimental side effects.

Greater rate of return to play and re-injury following all-inside meniscal repair compared to the inside-out technique: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Inside-out and all-inside arthroscopic meniscal repairs are widely performed. However, it remains unclear which method promotes greater clinical outcomes. This study compared inside-out versus all-inside arthroscopic meniscal repair in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), failures, return to play, and symptoms.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Two authors independently performed the literature search by accessing the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus in February 2023. All clinical studies which investigated the outcomes of all-inside and/or inside-out meniscal repair were considered.

RESULTS

Data from 39 studies (1848 patients) were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 36.8 (9 to 120) months. The mean age of the patients was 25.8 ± 7.9 years. 28% (521 of 1848 patients) were women. No difference was found in PROMs: Tegner Activity Scale (P = 0.4), Lysholm score (P = 0.2), and International Knee Document Committee score (P = 0.4) among patients undergoing meniscal repair with all inside or inside-out techniques. All-inside repairs showed a greater rate of re-injury (P = 0.009) but also a greater rate of return to play at the pre-injury level (P = 0.0001). No difference was found in failures (P = 0.7), chronic pain (P = 0.05), reoperation (P = 0.1) between the two techniques. No difference was found in the rate of return to play (P = 0.5) and to daily activities (P = 0.1) between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic all-inside meniscal repair may be of special interest in patients with a particular interest in a fast return to sport, while, for less demanding patients, the inside-out suture technique may be recommended. High-quality comparative trials are required to validate these results in a clinical setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review.

A Comparison of All-inside and Inside-out Meniscal Repair in Elite Athletes

BACKGROUND

The popularization of all-inside (AI) meniscal repair devices has led to a shift away from the historical gold standard of inside-out (IO) meniscal repair without comparative studies to support the change.

PURPOSE

To compare the failure rate and time to failure of AI and IO meniscal repair performed in elite athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all professional and national- and international-level amateur athletes who underwent meniscal repair, with a minimum of 2-year follow-up between January 2013 and September 2019. Meniscal repair was classified as AI or IO depending on the surgical technique performed. Treatment failure was defined as patients having to undergo subsequent surgery to address a persistent meniscal tear after repair. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine if meniscal repair failure rates differed by the location and technique of meniscal repair. Models were controlled for known risk factors such as age, sex, sport, and concurrent cruciate ligament reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 192 (135 lateral and 57 medial) meniscal repairs were performed in elite athletes during the study period. Overall, 41 (21%) meniscal repairs met the criteria for failure. Medial meniscal tears repaired with the AI technique failed at a significantly higher rate (18/31 [58%]) than medial meniscal tears repaired with the IO technique (6/26 [23%]) or lateral meniscal tears repaired with the AI (9/76 [12%]) or IO (8/59 [14%]) technique (P < .001). Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed that a medial meniscal tear repaired with the AI technique had an almost 8 times greater hazard of failure than a lateral meniscal tear repaired with the AI technique (P < .001). At 1 year postoperatively, 8% of lateral meniscal repairs had failed (regardless of technique), while medial meniscal tears failed at a rate of 16% with the IO technique and 42% with the AI technique. By 2 years, 53% of medial meniscal tears repaired with the AI technique had failed, and by 5 years, 63% had failed.

CONCLUSION

AI repair of medial meniscal tears led to a higher rate of failure than IO repair of medial or lateral meniscal tears in elite athletes. Medial meniscal repair failed at a higher rate than lateral meniscal repair.

Inside-Out Approach to Meniscus Repair: Still the Gold Standard?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an up-to-date summary on the current literature and trends regarding use of the inside-out approach to meniscus repair. Additionally, the paper describes the authors preferred techniques for inside-out meniscus repair utilizing posteromedial and posterolateral exposures.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a substantial increase in recent publications regarding meniscus repair. However, comparisons regarding the optimal repair technique have not been conclusive. Despite the recent increase in use of all-inside devices, multiple investigations with short-to-mid-term follow-up have demonstrated similar rates of meniscus healing between inside-out and all-inside repair techniques. Similarly, current literature describes comparable failure rates of around 20%. There are variations in the profile of complications, with all-inside devices having more implant-related complications and inside-out techniques with higher neurovascular injuries. Inside-out meniscus repair is a versatile, cost-effective technique that remains the gold standard for management of most meniscus tear patterns. Through a thoughtful approach, efficient suture retrieval and repair can be performed while protecting critical neurovascular structures. All-inside meniscus repair devices have increased in popularity and surgeon access, but this technique is not without limitations and comparisons to inside-out meniscus repair demonstrates equivocal outcomes.

Meniscectomy is still a frequent orthopedic procedure: a pending need for education on the meniscus treatment possibilities

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current status of education of polish surgeons in the subject of meniscus repair possibilities. The analysis of the possible correlations between the number of knee arthroscopy procedures performed by polish surgeons and their decision whether to remove or to repair the damaged meniscus has been performed.

METHODS

Two-hundred and five registered orthopedic surgeons took part in surveys. The questionnaire contained the description of 20 patients with different types of meniscus damage and three questions concerning the experience in knee arthroscopy (two questions) and a choice of the treatment method (one question). Comparisons were made between knee arthroscopy experts (> 100 arthroscopies performed per year) and non-experts (≤ 100 cases).

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 194 knee surgeons from Poland with different levels in knee arthroscopy experience. For most cases, experts and non-experts agreed on the meniscus treatment method. Statistically significant differences in the recommended treatment between experts and non-experts were observed in 4 cases, where experts decided to repair the damage rather than to perform the meniscectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Meniscectomy remains a frequent orthopedic procedure, despite meniscal sparing having been advocated for several decades now and despite the existence of meniscus repair technique which gives good clinical outcomes-augmentation of the damaged meniscus with a collagen membrane. Polish surgeons still need education on the meniscus treatment possibilities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.