Minimum 10-Year Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation With Fresh-Frozen Allografts Using the Bridge-in-Slot Technique

Long-Term Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Meniscus Allograft Transplant

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To reduce pain, improve function and possibly mitigate the risk for development of osteoarthritis in patients with functionally deficient meniscus pathology, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) can be used to restore native joint biomechanics and increase knee joint longevity. This review explores the senior author's preferred bridge-in-slot technique and recently published long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes following MAT.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature demonstrates MAT to be a safe and largely successful procedure for patients with functional meniscus deficiency. A majority of patients reach established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values. Graft survivorship is approximately 80% at 10 years, significantly delaying and in some cases, preventing the need for future joint reconstruction procedures in these young patients. Return to sport rates are over 70%, revealing meniscal allografts can withstand high impact activities. Cartilage damage at the time of MAT increases the risk for graft and clinical failure, though this may be mitigated with a concomitant cartilage restoration procedure. Meniscal allograft transplantation can provide a durable and effective long-term solution to meniscal deficiency in symptomatic patients who wish to decrease the risk of symptomatic progression and possibly further osteoarthritis and continue activities of daily life and sports with less pain and more function. By restoring more normal joint biomechanics, MAT can mitigate the potential need for future knee arthroplasty in this young active patient population.

Editorial Commentary: High-Grade Cartilage Lesions Require Treatment to Prevent Meniscal Allograft Transplant Failure

In patients with symptomatic high loss of meniscal volume and function due to irreparable tears, meniscal allograft transplantation may result in symptom relief and ideally prevent long-term consequences of articular cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis. However, the degree of cartilage damage at the time of meniscal allograft transplantation is associated with graft failure, and untreated high-grade cartilage lesions increase the risk. Correction of femorotibial malalignment is also essential.

Significant improvements in clinical outcome measures and patient satisfaction after combined all-arthroscopic meniscal allograft transplantation and autologous chondrocyte implantation: A single-centre longitudinal study

PURPOSE

The optimal treatment approach for the complex pathology of meniscal insufficiency and coexisting full-thickness cartilage defects remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the viability, safety, and efficacy of this combined surgical approach at medium-term follow-up.

METHODS

This is a single-centre longitudinal study with blinded outcome assessment. All consecutive patients treated with combined all-arthroscopic meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) with bone bridge fixation and ACI using chondrospheres at our institution between 2001 and 2021 were eligible for inclusion. Twenty patients with an average follow-up of 72.6 ± 34.4 months were included in the statistical analysis. Clinical outcomes were assessed pre- and postoperatively using the IKDC Subjective Knee Form, Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale, KOOS, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for patient satisfaction. Failure and reoperation rates were assessed, and cartilage regeneration tissue was evaluated on postoperative MRI.

RESULTS

IKDC scores significantly improved from 52.1 ± 16.9 to 68.5 ± 16.3 (p = 0.003). Lysholm scores improved from 61.5 ± 21.7 to 78.5 ± 12.9 (p = 0.004). Tegner scores improved from 3.5 (1-4) to 4.0 (2-6) (p = 0.014). KOOS scores improved significantly across all subcategories, except 'symptoms', where improvements did not reach statistical significance. VAS for overall patient satisfaction showed improvements but did not reach statistical significance. The combined procedure was successful in 17 patients (85%). Eight patients had to undergo reoperation (40%), comprising mostly small, arthroscopic procedures. Seven reoperations were directly attributable to meniscal allograft transplantation (46.7%). Postoperative Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue scores were 68.9 ± 16.8 (n = 14).

CONCLUSION

Combined arthroscopic MAT and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is a viable, safe, and effective treatment approach for younger patients with meniscal insufficiency and coexisting full-thickness cartilage damage, where alternative treatment options are limited. The combined surgical procedure achieved significant improvements in clinical outcome measures and patient satisfaction with acceptable failure and high arthroscopic reoperation rates. MAT is the limiting part of this combined procedure, with most failures and reoperations being attributable to MAT, as opposed to ACI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Meniscal allograft transplantation improves patient-reported outcomes in both minimal and moderate knee osteoarthritis at 1 and 2 years postoperatively

PURPOSE

Severe cartilage damage and advanced knee osteoarthritis (OA) might be associated with poor outcomes of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). The purpose of this prospective follow-up study was to explore MAT survivorship and patient satisfaction among young patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency and radiological OA of different Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grades.

METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive MAT patients were prospectively followed up for 2 years. The lateral meniscus was replaced in 29 patients and the medial meniscus in 6 patients. Outcomes were assessed using the KOOS4 composite score, KOOS subscales, Lysholm knee score, and OA K-L grade progression from weight-bearing knee radiographs. For the outcome analysis, patients were categorized into two groups: 19 in Group A (K-L classification 0-1) and 16 in Group B (K-L classification 2).

RESULTS

In terms of KOOS4 and Lysholm scores, the patients showed a clinically significant improvement from baseline to the 1-year follow-up (22.2 points, 95% CI 16.6-27.8 for KOOS4 and 16.8 points, 95% CI 8.9-24.6 for Lysholm), and the improvement remained at 2 years (20.6 points, 95% CI 13.2-28.1 for KOOS4 and 21.5, 95% CI 12.5-30.7 for Lysholm). At the 6-month follow-up, this improvement was not yet observed. Minor between-group differences were observed in the KOOS4 and Lysholm scores for the K-L 0-1 and K-L 2 OA groups, but the estimates were imprecise with wide confidence intervals. A clinically relevant difference between these two study groups could not be found at any timepoint. The reoperation rate was higher in the K-L 2 group than in the K-L 0-1 group (31% vs. 11%).

CONCLUSIONS

MAT yielded improved patient-reported outcomes and subjective satisfaction at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. The differences from baseline exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at all timepoints. The severity of cartilage damage and knee OA in terms of the K-L grade at the time of surgery did not affect the KOOS and Lysholm scores after the MAT procedure. Knee OA progression in terms of K-L grade worsening was not observed in any patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.