Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy versus Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscal Tear: a Systematic Review

Costs and Timing of Surgery in the Management of Meniscal Tears

Background

Treatment strategies for meniscal tears range from nonoperative management to surgical intervention. However, national trends in cost-related outcomes and patient factors related to the failure of nonoperative management remain poorly understood.

Purpose

To describe the costs associated with nonoperative versus operative management of meniscal tears in the 2 years after diagnosis and examine the relationship between patient characteristics and timing of surgery.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

This study was conducted using the MarketScan databases. Patients diagnosed with a meniscal tear without concomitant knee osteoarthritis between January 1 and December 31, 2017, were included. The primary outcome was the total cost of meniscal tear-related procedures-including insurance deductibles, coinsurance, and net insurance payments-in the 2 years after diagnosis. Procedures included were as follows: (1) surgery-including meniscectomy or meniscal repair; (2) physical therapy; (3) medication-including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, opioids, and acetaminophen; (4) intra-articular injections-including professional fee, hyaluronic acid, and corticosteroids; (5) imaging; and (6) clinic visits to orthopaedic specialists. Patients were grouped as having undergone early surgery (ES) (≤3 months of diagnosis), late surgery (LS) (>3 months after diagnosis), or no surgery (NS). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the likelihood of undergoing surgery early and failing nonoperative treatment.

Results

The study population included 29,924 patients with a mean age of 43.9 ± 12.9 years (ES: n = 9507 (31.8%); LS: n = 2021 (6.8%); NS: n = 18,396 (61.5%)). Complex (36.6%) and medial (58.8%) meniscal tears were the most common type and location of injuries, respectively. The mean cost of management per patient was $3835 ± $4795. Costs were lower in the NS group ($1905 ± $3175) compared with the ES group ($6759 ± $5155), while the highest costs were observed in the LS group ($7649 ± $5913) (P < .001). Patients who were men, >40 years, and with a bucket-handle or lateral meniscal tear were more likely to undergo surgery early. Patients who were men, <30 years, and with a complex tear or tear to the lateral meniscus were more likely to fail nonoperative management.

Conclusion

Nonoperative management had the lowest cost burden and should be recommended for patients with appropriate indications. However, if surgery is necessary, it should be performed earlier.

Total Knee Replacement After Arthroscopic Meniscectomy in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies raise concerns that arthroscopic meniscectomy (AM) for degenerative tear may be detrimental to the maintenance of the joint structure. This study was performed to examine the rate of total knee replacement (TKR) among patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent AM for meniscal tears and compare this rate with those who did not.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Health Insurance Database of South Korea. Among knee OA patients aged 50-79, those who were treated with AM due to meniscal damage from 2007 to 2009 were selected as the AM group while those not treated with AM despite the presence of meniscal damage were selected as control group. Both were matched based on a propensity score and followed-up until the earliest occurrence of: TKR, death, or 10 years. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 36,974 patients were included in AM groups and non-AM group after 1:1 matching. TKR occurred in 9.62% and 7.64% in AM and non-AM groups with the average duration after meniscectomy of 5.88 ± 2.77 and 5.50 ± 2.94 years, respectively. After adjustment for baseline confounders, the TKR rate in the AM group was calculated to be 25% higher than that in the non-AM group (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.34). The mortality rate was 5.20%, which did not significantly differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

OA patients who underwent AM for the meniscal injury had higher incidence of TKR up to 10 years of follow-up than the non-operated group. The greater TKR utilization observed in patients undergoing AM merits caution when treating OA patients with meniscal injury.

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.