Functional Outcomes of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Versus Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscal Tears Using a Patient-Specific Score: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

It is unknown whether the treatment effects of partial meniscectomy and physical therapy differ when focusing on activities most valued by patients with degenerative meniscal tears.

Purpose

To compare partial meniscectomy with physical therapy in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear, focusing on patients' most important functional limitations as the outcome.

Study Design

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods

This study is part of the Cost-effectiveness of Early Surgery versus Conservative Treatment with Optional Delayed Meniscectomy for Patients over 45 years with non-obstructive meniscal tears (ESCAPE) trial, a multicenter noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 9 orthopaedic hospital departments in the Netherlands. The ESCAPE trial included 321 patients aged between 45 and 70 years with a symptomatic, magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed meniscal tear. Exclusion criteria were severe osteoarthritis, body mass index >35 kg/m², locking of the knee, and prior knee surgery or knee instability due to an anterior or posterior cruciate ligament rupture. This study compared partial meniscectomy with physical therapy consisting of a supervised incremental exercise protocol of 16 sessions over 8 weeks. The main outcome measure was the Dutch-language equivalent of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), a secondary outcome measure of the ESCAPE trial. We used crude and adjusted linear mixed-model analyses to reveal the between-group differences over 24 months. We calculated the minimal important change for the PSFS using an anchor-based method.

Results

After 24 months, 286 patients completed the follow-up. The partial meniscectomy group (n = 139) improved on the PSFS by a mean of 4.8 ± 2.6 points (from 6.8 ± 1.9 to 2.0 ± 2.2), and the physical therapy group (n = 147) improved by a mean of 4.0 ± 3.1 points (from 6.7 ± 2.0 to 2.7 ± 2.5). The crude overall between-group difference showed a -0.6-point difference (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.2; P = .004) in favor of the partial meniscectomy group. This improvement was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful, as the calculated minimal important change was 2.5 points on an 11-point scale.

Conclusion

Both interventions were associated with a clinically meaningful improvement regarding patients' most important functional limitations. Although partial meniscectomy was associated with a statistically larger improvement at some follow-up time points, the difference compared with physical therapy was small and clinically not meaningful at any follow-up time point.

Registration

NCT01850719 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier) and NTR3908 (the Netherlands Trial Register).

How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study

Objectives

To examine whether physical therapy (PT) is cost-effective compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients with a non-obstructive meniscal tear, we performed a full trial-based economic evaluation from a societal perspective. In a secondary analysis—this paper—we examined whether PT is non-inferior to APM.

Methods

We recruited patients aged 45–70 years with a non-obstructive meniscal tear in nine Dutch hospitals. Resource use was measured using web-based questionnaires. Measures of effectiveness included knee function using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Follow-up was 24 months. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. The non-inferiority margins for societal costs, the IKDC and QALYs, were €670, 8 points and 0.057 points, respectively.

Results

We randomly assigned 321 patients to PT (n=162) or APM (n=159). PT was associated with significantly lower costs after 24 months compared with APM (−€1803; 95% CI −€3008 to −€838). The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was 1.00 at a willingness to pay of €0/unit of effect for the IKDC (knee function) and QALYs (quality of life) and decreased with increasing values of willingness to pay. The probability that PT is non-inferior to APM was 0.97 for all non-inferiority margins for the IKDC and 0.89 for QALYs.

Conclusions

The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was relatively high at reasonable values of willingness to pay for the IKDC and QALYs. Also, PT had a relatively high probability of being non-inferior to APM for both outcomes. This warrants further deimplementation of APM in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears.

Trial registration numbers

NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

Effect of Early Surgery vs Physical Therapy on Knee Function Among Patients With Nonobstructive Meniscal Tears: The ESCAPE Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Despite recent studies suggesting arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is not more effective than physical therapy (PT), the procedure is still frequently performed in patients with meniscal tears.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether PT is noninferior to APM for improving patient-reported knee function in patients with meniscal tears.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Noninferiority, multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted in 9 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants were aged 45 to 70 years with nonobstructive meniscal tears (ie, no locking of the knee joint). Patients with knee instability, severe osteoarthritis, and body mass index greater than 35 were excluded. Recruitment took place between July 17, 2013, and November 4, 2015. Participants were followed up for 24 months (final participant follow-up, October 11, 2017).

INTERVENTIONS

Three hundred twenty-one participants were randomly assigned to APM (n = 159) or a predefined PT protocol (n = 162). The PT protocol consisted of 16 sessions of exercise therapy over 8 weeks focused on coordination and closed kinetic chain strength exercises.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in patient-reported knee function on the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (range, 0 to 100; from worse to best) from baseline over a 24-month follow-up period. The noninferiority margin was defined as a difference between treatment groups of 8 points and was assessed with a 1-sided α of .025. The primary analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Among 321 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 58 [6.6] years; 161 women [50%]), 289 (90%) completed the trial (161 women and 158 men). In the PT group, 47 participants (29%) had APM during the 24-month follow-up period, and 8 participants randomized to APM (5%) did not have APM. Over a 24-month follow-up period, knee function improved in the APM group by 26.2 points (from 44.8 to 71.5) and in the PT group by 20.4 points (from 46.5 to 67.7). The overall between-group difference was 3.6 points (97.5% CI, -∞ to 6.5; P value for noninferiority = .001). Adverse events occurred in 18 participants in the APM group and 12 in the PT group. Repeat surgery (3 in the APM group and 1 in the PT group) and additional outpatient visits for knee pain (6 in the APM group and 2 in the PT group) were the most frequent adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with nonobstructive meniscal tears, PT was noninferior to APM for improving patient-reported knee function over a 24-month follow-up period. Based on these results, PT may be considered an alternative to surgery for patients with nonobstructive meniscal tears.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01850719.