Search

Purpose: To compare the long-term clinical and radiological results of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) for discoid lateral meniscus (DLM) patients with MAT for non-discoid lateral meniscus patients and meniscectomy (ME) for DLM patients and, thus, to determine whether DLM patients are suitable candidates for MAT. Methods: Eight MAT cases in DLM patients were identified (discoid MAT group), six MAT cases in non-discoid lateral meniscus patients (non-discoid MAT group) and ten total meniscectomy cases in DLM patients (discoid ME group) were matched as controls. Subjective evaluations, postoperative radiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were conducted at 5 years and 10–14 years, respectively. Joint degeneration was evaluated by the Kellgren–Lawrance (KL) grade and joint space width (JSW). MRI with T2 mapping sequences was used to quantitatively evaluate degeneration of the joint cartilage and shrinkage of the allografts. Student's t test was used to compare quantitative variables and the Mann‒Whitney U test was used to compare categorical variables. Results: There was no difference in Lysholm, IKDC, Tegner or VAS scores amongst the discoid MAT, non-discoid MAT and discoid ME groups at the final follow-up. No revision surgery was performed in any MAT patient. The JSW narrowing in the discoid MAT group was better than that in the discoid ME group (0.8 ± 0.4 mm vs. 2.1 ± 1.3 mm, p = 0.012) and worse than that in the non-discoid MAT group (0.1 ± 0.1 mm, p = 0.003). The KL progression of the discoid MAT group was less than that of the discoid ME group (1.3 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9, p = 0.034). The discoid ME group had worse cartilage lesion progression than the discoid MAT and non-discoid MAT groups. The allograft width of the DLM patients shrank more than that of the non-discoid patients at the meniscus midbody (3.6 ± 0.9 mm vs. 6.2 ± 1.9 mm, p = 0.015). Conclusion: Compared to meniscectomy, MAT achieved similar long-term symptom relief and superior chondroprotection in discoid meniscus patients. Despite more graft shrinkage, the outcomes of MAT in discoid meniscus patients were comparable to those in non-discoid meniscus patients. Therefore, DLM patients may be suitable candidates for MAT procedures. Level of evidence: Level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The primary aim of this systematic review was to examine the hypothesis that meniscal allograft transplantation is chondroprotective by identifying and appraising studies that have assessed the progression of osteoarthritis following meniscal allograft transplantation. The secondary aim was to identify and appraise radiological measures of meniscal allograft integrity following surgery.Methods: Clinical studies on human participants undergoing meniscal allograft transplantation with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. The primary outcome measure was any radiological osteoarthritis progression measure. Secondary outcomes included magnetic resonance measures of meniscal integrity including meniscal size, shape, healing, extrusion and signal intensity.Results: Thirty-eight studies with 1056 allografts were included. The weighted mean joint space loss was 0.032 mm at 4.5 years across 11 studies. Other radiological classification systems were reported in small numbers and with variable progression rates. Meniscal extrusion was present in nearly all cases, but was not associated with clinical or other radiological outcomes. Meniscal healing rates were high, although the size, shape and signal intensity were commonly altered from that of the native meniscus. The quality of the included studies was low, with a high risk of bias.Conclusion: There is some evidence to support the hypothesis that meniscal allograft transplantation reduces the progression of osteoarthritis, although it is unlikely to be as effective as the native meniscus. If this is proven, there may be a role for prophylactic meniscal allograft transplantation in selected patients. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to further test this hypothesis.Level Of Evidence: Systematic review of studies, Level IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pre-clinical studies have shown that treatment by pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) can limit the catabolic effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines on articular cartilage and favour the anabolic activity of the chondrocytes. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is usually performed by arthroscopic procedure that, even if minimally invasive, may elicit an inflammatory joint reaction detrimental to articular cartilage. In this study the effect of I-ONE PEMFs treatment in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction was investigated. The study end-points were (1) evaluation of patients’ functional recovery by International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Form; (2) use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), necessary to control joint pain and inflammation. The study design was prospective, randomized and double blind. Sixty-nine patients were included in the study at baseline. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 30, 60 and 180 days, followed by 2-year follow-up interview. Patients were evaluated by IKDC Form and were asked to report on the use of NSAIDs. Patients were randomized to active or placebo treatments; active device generated a magnetic field of 1.5 mT at 75 Hz. Patients were instructed to use the stimulator (I-ONE) for 4 h per day for 60 days. All patients underwent ACL reconstruction with use of quadruple hamstrings semitendinosus and gracilis technique. At baseline there were no differences in the IKDC scores between the two groups. At follow-up visits the SF-36 Health Survey score showed a statistically significant faster recovery in the group of patients treated with I-ONE stimulator ( P < 0.05). NSAIDs use was less frequent among active patients than controls ( P < 0.05). Joint swelling resolution and return to normal range of motion occurred faster in the active treated group ( P < 0.05) too. The 2-year follow-up did not shown statistically significant difference between the two groups. Furthermore for longitudinal analysis the generalized linear mixed effects model was applied to calculate the group × time interaction coefficient; this interaction showed a significant difference ( P < 0.0001) between the active and placebo groups for all investigated variables: SF-36 Health Survey, IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation and VAS. Twenty-nine patients (15 in the active group; 14 in the placebo group) underwent both ACL reconstruction and meniscectomy; when they were analysed separately the differences in SF-36 Health Survey scores between the two groups were larger then what observed in the whole study group ( P < 0.05). The results of this study show that patient’s functional recovery occurs earlier in the active group. No side effects were observed and the treatment was well tolerated. The use of I-ONE should always be considered after ACL reconstruction, particularly in professional athletes, to shorten the recovery time, to limit joint inflammatory reaction and its catabolic effects on articular cartilage and ultimately for joint preservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe joint inflammation following trauma, arthroscopic surgery or infection can damage articular cartilage, thus every effort should be made to protect cartilage from the catabolic effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines and stimulate cartilage anabolic activities. Previous pre-clinical studies have shown that pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) can protect articular cartilage from the catabolic effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and prevent its degeneration, finally resulting in chondroprotection. These findings provide the rational to support the study of the effect of PEMFs in humans after arthroscopic surgery. The purpose of this pilot, randomized, prospective and double-blind study was to evaluate the effects of PEMFs in patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage. Patients with knee pain were recruited and treated by arthroscopy with chondroabrasion and/or perforations and/or radiofrequencies. They were randomized into two groups: a control group (magnetic field at 0.05 mT) and an active group (magnetic field of 1.5 mT). All patients were instructed to use PEMFs for 90 days, 6 h per day. The patients were evaluated by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) test before arthroscopy, and after 45 and 90 days. The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to control pain was also recorded. Patients were interviewed for the long-term outcome 3 years after arthroscopic surgery. Thirty-one patients completed the treatment. KOOS values at 45 and 90 days were higher in the active group and the difference was significant at 90 days ( P < 0.05). The percentage of patients who used NSAIDs was 26% in the active group and 75% in the control group ( P = 0.015). At 3 years follow-up, the number of patients who completely recovered was higher in the active group compared to the control group ( P < 0.05). Treatment with I-ONE aided patient recovery after arthroscopic surgery, reduced the use of NSAIDs, and also had a positive long-term effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]