Comparison of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy treatments in degenerative meniscus tears and the effect of combined hyaluronic acid injection with these treatments: A randomized clinical trial

Long-term effects of exercise therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for degenerative meniscal tear: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Degenerative meniscal tear (DMT) is common in the elderly population. However, there has been controversy over the treatment of DMT regarding whether to adopt arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) or exercise therapy (ET). In order to compare the long-term outcomes between the two treatment methods, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with long-term follow-up.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were last searched on 16 April 2023 for studies on DMT that compared the clinical outcomes between APM and ET. The subjective outcomes of the comparison include the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), which consists of five sub-scales: pain, symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), sport and recreation (Sport/recreation), and quality of life (QOL). The objective outcome includes knee osteoarthritis progression.

RESULTS

We identified 6 potentially eligible trials, including 1078 participants, from the literature search. ET showed a lower risk of knee osteoarthritis progression than APM (RR, 1·27; 95%CI 1·05 to 1·53). There were no statistically significant differences in the KOOS-pain, KOOS-symptoms, KOOS-ADL, KOOS-Sport/recreation, and KOOS-QOL between the two treatment methods.

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of DMT, ET showed a lower risk of knee osteoarthritis progression than APM. ET and APM had comparable effects on subjective outcomes including pain management and knee function. Therefore, it is not recommended to use APM but rather recommended to use ET for treating APM.

Physical Therapist Interventions Versus or Combined With Surgical Treatment in Nontraumatic Degenerative Meniscal Pathology: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to synthesize the evidence from randomized clinical trials in people with nontraumatic degenerative meniscal pathology by comparing physical therapist interventions versus or combined with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM).

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Data synthesis was performed with random-effects network meta-analysis, and results were summarized using the standardized mean differences.

RESULTS

From 2103 studies, 10 randomized clinical trials comprising 1411 individuals were included. Ninety percent of the selected randomized clinical trials were classified as good quality according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. All interventions (physical therapist interventions, APM, and APM plus physical therapist interventions) showed reduced pain and physical impairments at 3-month follow-up. However, when a physical therapist intervention was included, greater reductions in pain at rest (APM vs physical therapist interventions: 0.73 [95% CI = 0.20 to 1.26]; APM vs APM plus physical therapist interventions: 0.59 [95% CI = 0.15 to 1.03]) and greater increases in the strength of knee extensor muscles (APM vs physical therapist interventions: 0.44 [95% CI = 0.07 to 0.80]; APM vs APM plus physical therapist interventions: 0.73 [95% CI = 0.29 to 1.16]) were observed at 3 months. By contrast, no differences were found between treatments beyond 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Physical therapist interventions based on exercise programs demonstrate superior short-term outcomes in pain reduction and knee extensor strength compared to surgical treatment.

IMPACT

For nontraumatic degenerative meniscal pathology, conservative treatment utilizing a physical therapist intervention approach should be prioritized as the first choice over surgical treatment. It offers comparable or superior short-term pain reduction and strength improvements, with a lower risk of side effects. In cases where surgery is deemed necessary, including postsurgical, physical therapist interventions are highly recommended to enhance muscle strength and alleviate pain.

Current advances in engineering meniscal tissues: insights into 3D printing, injectable hydrogels and physical stimulation based strategies

The knee meniscus is the cushioning fibro-cartilage tissue present in between the femoral condyles and tibial plateau of the knee joint. It is largely avascular in nature and suffers from a wide range of tears and injuries caused by accidents, trauma, active lifestyle of the populace and old age of individuals. Healing of the meniscus is especially difficult due to its avascularity and hence requires invasive arthroscopic approaches such as surgical resection, suturing or implantation. Though various tissue engineering approaches are proposed for the treatment of meniscus tears, three-dimensional (3D) printing/bioprinting, injectable hydrogels and physical stimulation involving modalities are gaining forefront in the past decade. A plethora of new printing approaches such as direct light photopolymerization and volumetric printing, injectable biomaterials loaded with growth factors and physical stimulation such as low-intensity ultrasound approaches are being added to the treatment portfolio along with the contemporary tear mitigation measures. This review discusses on the necessary design considerations, approaches for 3D modeling and design practices for meniscal tear treatments within the scope of tissue engineering and regeneration. Also, the suitable materials, cell sources, growth factors, fixation and lubrication strategies, mechanical stimulation approaches, 3D printing strategies and injectable hydrogels for meniscal tear management have been elaborated. We have also summarized potential technologies and the potential framework that could be the herald of the future of meniscus tissue engineering and repair approaches.

Clinical and Biochemical Implications of Hyaluronic Acid in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Comprehensive Review

Hyaluronic acid (HA) naturally occurs as a biopolymer in the human body, primarily in connective tissues like joints and skin. Functioning as a vital element of synovial fluid, it lubricates joints, facilitating fluid movement and diminishing bone friction to protect articular well-being. Its distinctive attributes encompass notable viscosity and water retention capacities, ensuring flexibility and absorbing shock during motion. Furthermore, HA has gained significant attention for its potential benefits in various medical applications, including rehabilitation. Ongoing research explores its properties and functions, especially its biomedical applications in several clinical trials, with a focus on its role in improving rehabilitation outcomes. But the clinical and biochemical implications of HA in musculoskeletal rehabilitation have yet to be fully explored. This review thoroughly investigates the properties and functions of HA while highlighting its biomedical applications in different clinical trials, with a special emphasis on its role in rehabilitation. The presented findings provide evidence that HA, as a natural substance, enhances the outcomes of musculoskeletal rehabilitation through its exceptional mechanical and biochemical effects.

Comparative Efficacy of Intra-Articular Injection, Physical Therapy, and Combined Treatments on Pain, Function, and Sarcopenia Indices in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is associated with a high risk of sarcopenia. Both intra-articular injections (IAIs) and physical therapy (PT) exert benefits in KOA. This network meta-analysis (NMA) study aimed to identify comparative efficacy among the combined treatments (IAI+PT) in patients with KOA. Seven electronic databases were systematically searched from inception until January 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effects of IAI+PT vs. IAI or PT alone in patients with KOA. All RCTs which had treatment arms of IAI agents (autologous conditioned serum, botulinum neurotoxin type A, corticosteroids, dextrose prolotherapy (DxTP), hyaluronic acid, mesenchymal stem cells (MSC), ozone, platelet-rich plasma, plasma rich in growth factor, and stromal vascular fraction of adipose tissue) in combination with PT (exercise therapy, physical agent modalities (electrotherapy, shockwave therapy, thermal therapy), and physical activity training) were included in this NMA. A control arm receiving placebo IAI or usual care, without any other IAI or PT, was used as the reference group. The selected RCTs were analyzed through a frequentist method of NMA. The main outcomes included pain, global function (GF), and walking capability (WC). Meta-regression analyses were performed to explore potential moderators of the treatment efficacy. We included 80 RCTs (6934 patients) for analyses. Among the ten identified IAI+PT regimens, DxTP plus PT was the most optimal treatment for pain reduction (standard mean difference (SMD) = -2.54) and global function restoration (SMD = 2.28), whereas MSC plus PT was the most effective for enhancing WC recovery (SMD = 2.54). More severe KOA was associated with greater changes in pain (β = -2.52) and WC (β = 2.16) scores. Combined IAI+PT treatments afford more benefits than do their corresponding monotherapies in patients with KOA; however, treatment efficacy is moderated by disease severity.

Effectiveness of Rehabilitation for Knee Osteoarthritis Associated With Isolated Meniscus Injury: A Scoping Review

Meniscus tear is the most common type of injury to the meniscus and occurs more frequently on the medial compartments than the lateral compartments. Further, it is often caused by trauma or degenerative processes and can occur anywhere on either the meniscus, anterior horn, posterior horn, or midbody. Treatment of meniscus injuries is likely to greatly impact the evolution of osteoarthritis (OA) as meniscus injuries can gradually progress to knee OA. Hence, treatment of these injuries is important for managing the progression of OA. While the types of meniscus injuries and symptoms have been reported previously, the effectiveness of rehabilitation according to the degree of meniscus injury (e.g., vertical, longitudinal, radial, and posterior horn tears) remains unknown. In this review, we aimed to investigate whether rehabilitation for knee OA associated with isolated meniscus injuries varies with the degree of injury and determine the effects of rehabilitation on outcomes. We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database for studies published before September 2021. Studies on ≥40-year-old patients with knee OA and isolated meniscus injury were included for analysis. The types of meniscus injury were classified as longitudinal, radial, transverse, flap, combined, or avulsion of the anterior and posterior roots of the medial meniscus, and assigned knee arthropathy grades of 0-4 according to the Kellgren-Lawrence classification. The exclusion criteria were meniscus injury, combined meniscus and ligament injury, and knee OA associated with combined injury in patients <40 years of age. There were no restrictions on the region, race, or gender of participants, or language or research format of the studies. The outcome measures were the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Score, Visual Analog Scale or Numeric Rating Scale, Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool, International Knee Documentation Committee Score, Lysholm Score, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, one-leg hop test, timed up and go test, and re-injury and muscle strength. A total of 16 reports met these criteria. In studies that did not classify or distinguish degrees of meniscus injury, the effects of rehabilitation were generally favorable in the medium-to-long term. In cases where the intervention was not sufficiently effective, patients were recommended either arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or total knee replacement. Studies on medial meniscus posterior root tear did not confirm the effectiveness of rehabilitation due to the short intervention period. Further, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score cut-offs, clinically important differences in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and minimum important changes in patient-specific functional scales were reported. Of the 16 studies reported in this review, nine met the definition. This scoping review has a few limitations such as the effect of rehabilitation alone could not be examined, and the intervention effectiveness differed at short-term follow-up. In conclusion, there was a gap in evidence regarding the rehabilitation of knee OA after isolated meniscus injury due to differences in intervention duration and methods. In addition, on short-term follow-up, intervention effects varied across studies.

Efficacy and safety of arthroscopic surgery combined with hyaluronic acid for meniscal injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of arthroscopic surgery combined with hyaluronic acid in the treatment of meniscal injuries were evaluated by Meta-analysis to provide an evidence-based basis for the selection of clinical treatment options.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science English databases, and Chinese databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WAN FANG, VIP, and China SinoMed had been searched up to June 2021. Quality evaluation was performed concerning the Cochrane Systematic Evaluation Tool. The obtained data were analyzed using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total of 955 patients were eventually included, 473 in the arthroscopic combined with hyaluronic acid group (combined treatment group) and 482 in the arthroscopy alone group (surgery group). The results of the study revealed that the excellent treatment [OR = 3.44, 95% CI (2.10, 5.65), p < .00,001], the VAS score [MD = -0.99, 95% CI (-1.50, -0.48), p = .0002], the Lysholm score [MD = 9.70, 95% CI (6.41, 12.99), p < .00,001] and the joint mobility [MD = 6.31, 95% CI (0.84, 11.78), p = .02] of the combined treatment group were significantly better than the surgery group, the difference was statistically significant. The complications rate was comparable in both groups [OR = 0.86, 95% CI (0.29, 2.53), p = .78], with no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic surgery combined with hyaluronic acid for meniscal injury can improve the efficiency of treatment compared with arthroscopic surgery alone, as well as the efficacy in relieving joint pain and improving joint function and mobility, without increasing the incidence of complications. Arthroscopic surgery combined with hyaluronic acid administration has good effectiveness and safety profile. Therefore, hyaluronic acid supplementation is recommended after arthroscopic surgery when treating meniscal injuries.

Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Intra-articular Injection after Arthroscopic Knee Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Hyaluronic acid (HA) intra-articular injection after arthroscopic knee surgery has been widely applied but its efficacy and safety remain controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the efficacy and safety of HA intra-articular injection after arthroscopic knee surgery, and to compare the efficacy of HA with different molecular weights.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Google scholar and the Cochrane library from inception to 16 September 2022 for English-written articles, in order to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the clinical efficacy and/or safety of HA intra-articular injection after arthroscopic knee surgery. Then we meta-analyzed the outcomes of patients given intra-articular HA injections postoperatively and control patients. We also evaluated the influence of HA with different molecular weights. In every calculation, sensitive analysis was performed. The visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and adverse events were selected as the primary outcome measurements, while Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner score were selected as the secondary outcome measurements. Publication bias of every outcome was evaluated using egger test.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies involving 951 knees were included and 12 of them were used to performed the meta-analysis. The results showed no significant difference between the HA group and control group according to VAS, whether assessed at less (P = 0.90) or more than 6 months (P = 0.55). Besides, there were no statistical differences between the HA group and control group according to subgroup analysis (Ps = 0.77, 0.91 and 0.81 in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, meniscectomy and overall groups, respectively). Compared to control group, the overall effect of WOMAC score showed no significant differences (P = 0.25), nor did in two subgroups (P = 0.37 and P = 0.22). Outcomes measured by Lysholm (P = 0.13), IKDC (P = 0.86) and Tegner (P = 0.42) scores showed no significant differences, either. The analysis of the risk of adverse events indicated no increase in HA groups (P = 0.06). We found no significant differences between high- and low-molecular-weight HA at 6 (P = 0.96) or 12 months (P = 0.93) postoperatively. Two studies failed to pass the sensitive analysis and the reasons were discussed detailly and acceptable publication bias was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although HA injection after arthroscopic knee surgery is safe, the available evidence does not support its efficacy in pain relief and functional recovery. Therefore, the application of HA injection after arthroscopic knee surgery is not recommended.

No evidence in support of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in adults with degenerative and nonobstructive meniscal symptoms: a level I evidence-based systematic review

PURPOSE

It is unclear whether the results of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) are comparable to a structured physical therapy (PT). This systematic review investigated efficacy of APM in the management of symptomatic meniscal damages in middle aged patients. Current available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared APM performed in isolation or combined with physical therapy versus sham arthroscopy or isolated physical therapy were considered in the present systematic review.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. All the level I RCTs which investigated the efficacy of AMP were accessed. Studies which included elderlies with severe OA were not eligible, nor were those in which APM was combined with other surgical intervention or in patients with unstable knee or with ligaments insufficiency. The risk of bias was assessed using the software Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). To rate the quality of evidence of collected outcomes, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used.

RESULTS

Data from 17 studies (2037 patients) were collected. 48.5% (988 of 2037 patients) were women. The mean age of the patients was 52.7 ± 3.9 years, the mean BMI 27.0 ± 1.3 kg/m². The current evidence suggests no difference in functional PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), clinical PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), pain (quality of the evidence: high), quality of life (quality of the evidence: high), physical performance measures (quality of the evidence: moderate), and OA progression (quality of the evidence: moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of APM in adults with degenerative and nonobstructive meniscal symptoms are limited. The current evidence reports similarity in the outcome between APM and PT. Further long-term RCTs are required to investigate whether APM and PT produce comparable results using validated and reliable PROMs. Moreover, future RCTs should investigate whether patients who might benefit from APM exist, clarifying proper indications and outcomes. High quality investigations are strongly required to establish the optimal PT regimes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.