Search

Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to perform a survey administered to members of the Meniscus International Network (MenIN) Study Group, seeking to delineate the most contentious aspects of meniscal extrusion classification and provide a foundation for new, more comprehensive definitions and treatments for these pathologies. Methods: MenIN Study Group is a group of international experts treating and performing research on meniscus pathology and treatment. All MenIN Study Group members were asked to complete a survey aimed at establishing criteria for the optimal classification system for meniscal extrusion. Data obtained from the completed questionnaires were transferred into a spreadsheet and then analysed. All responses are presented as counts, percentages or means. Results: Forty‐seven (85.5%) MenIN Study Group members completed the survey and were included in this analysis. Key aspects recommended for inclusion in a comprehensive classification system for meniscal extrusion included laterality (93.6%), anatomical location (76.6%), patient age (76.6%), body mass index (BMI) (68.1%) and aetiology (68.1%). For classifying meniscal extrusion, 53.2% considered the distance in millimetres from the tibial plateau's outer margin as the most reliable measurement technique on imaging. Preferences for imaging modalities varied, with 44.7% favouring weight‐bearing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 36.2% opting for weight‐bearing ultrasound due to its greater availability. Respondents advocated for a classification system addressing stability or progression of meniscal extrusion (66%), reducibility (53.2%), potential progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA) (83%), influencing treatment approaches (83%), a gradation system (83%), consideration of dynamic factors (66%), association with clinical outcomes and prognosis (76.6%) and investigation around centralization procedures (57.4%). Conclusions: In conclusion, the findings of this survey shed light on the global perspectives regarding meniscal extrusion classification. It was generally felt that a new classification of extrusion measured on MRI scans at the mid‐tibial plateau should be developed, which considers factors such as laterality, anatomical location, age, BMI and aetiology. Additionally, the results support the integration of dynamic factors and clinical outcomes in MRI‐based classifications to inform treatment approaches. Level of Evidence: Level IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In younger patients and those without severe degenerative changes, the efficacy of intra-articular (IA) injections as a nonoperative modality for treating symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA)–related pain while maintaining function has become a subject of increasing interest. Purpose: To assess and compare the efficacy of different IA injections used for the treatment of knee OA, including hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (CS), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF), with a minimum 6-month patient follow-up. Study Design: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar. Mean or mean change from baseline and standard deviation for outcome scores regarding pain and function were recorded at the 6-month follow-up and converted to either a 0 to 100 visual analog scale score for pain or a 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score for function. A frequentist network meta-analysis model was developed to compare the effects of HA, CS, PRP, PRGF, and placebo on patient-reported outcomes. Results: All IA treatments except CS were found to result in a statistically significant improvement in outcomes when compared with placebo. PRP demonstrated a clinically meaningful difference in function-related improvement when compared with CS and placebo due to large effect sizes. Studies evaluating outcomes of PRGF reported significant improvement when compared with placebo due to large effect sizes, whereas a potential clinically significant difference was detected in the same comparison parameters in pain evaluation. With regard to improvements in pain, function, and both combined, PRP was found to possess the highest probability of efficacy, followed by PRGF, HA, CS, and placebo. Conclusion: PRP yielded improved outcomes when compared with PRGF, HA, CS, and placebo for the treatment of symptomatic knee OA at a minimum 6-month follow-up. Further investigations evaluating different IA and other nonoperative treatment options for patients with knee OA are warranted to better understand the true clinical efficacy and long-term outcomes of nonsurgical OA management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Durable, meaningful symptom responses to intra-articular saline placebo injections are observed in knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials, but it is unclear if these are due to physiological effects. Purpose: To perform a prospective comparison of patient-reported outcome responses among participants with knee OA who underwent intra-articular injection of saline-based placebo or sham (dry needle). Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: From a 24-week randomized double-blind trial, participants with moderate to severe knee OA received 2-mL intra-articular injections of saline-based placebo (PBO; 99.45% PBS) or sham (dry needle) to the target knee. Least squares mean differences of changes from baseline to week 24 were compared between the PBO and sham groups for the following: pain Numeric Rating Scale; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, stiffness, and function; and patient global assessment. Bang Blinding Index was used to evaluate all-group blinding on day 1 and week 24. Results: In total, 116 and 117 participants were randomized to the PBO and sham groups, respectively. Within the full trial population, the mean ± SD age and body mass index were 59.0 ± 8.5 years and 28.97 ± 4.01, respectively. An overall 406 (58.4%) were female, and 394 (57.3%) had Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 target knee OA. The PBO and sham groups demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements (≥10%) from baseline in all patient-reported outcomes at all time points (ie, weeks 4-24). Mean differences (95% CI) at week 24 between the PBO and sham groups were as follows: pain Numeric Rating Scale, –0.10 (–0.79 to 0.59; P =.78); WOMAC pain, –2.89 (–9.70 to 3.92; P =.40); WOMAC stiffness, –2.37 (–9.37 to 4.63; P =.51); and WOMAC function, –1.39 (–8.06 to 5.29; P =.68). Bang Blinding Index indicated that blinding was maintained. Conclusion: PBO and sham groups demonstrated equivalent patient-reported outcomes at all time points through week 24, suggesting that responses attributed to saline were contextual (ie, to the procedure) and not physiological. Registration: NCT03122860 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite being recognized as a safe procedure with minimal reported complications, injecting autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) as an adjuvant to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) for symptomatic patients with meniscal tears and concomitant knee osteoarthritis (OA) has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.To compare patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores and radiographic outcomes in symptomatic patients with meniscal tears and concomitant mild knee OA who underwent APM with and without an autologous BMAC injection administered at the time of surgery.Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.Enrolled patients aged ≥18 years determined to have a symptomatic meniscal tear with concomitant mild knee OA suitable for APM and meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized into 2 groups: BMAC and control (no BMAC). The primary endpoint of the study was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score at 1 year postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included radiographic outcomes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade) at 1 year postoperatively and various PROM scores, including those for the IKDC, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), visual analog scale, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after meniscectomy.Of the 95 enrolled patients, 83 (87.4%) were included for final analysis. No significant differences were found between the groups with regard to patient characteristics, intraoperative variables, concomitant procedures, preoperative PROM scores, or preoperative radiographic findings. At 1 year postoperatively, the BMAC group failed to demonstrate significantly better IKDC scores (P = .687) or radiographic outcomes (P > .05 for all radiographic measures) compared with the control group. Secondary PROM scores also did not significantly differ between the groups (P > .05 for all PROMs). However, there were higher achievement rates of the minimal clinically important difference for the KOOS Sport (100.0% vs 80.0%, respectively; P = .023) and KOOS Symptoms (92.3% vs 68.0%, respectively; P = .038) at 1 year postoperatively in the BMAC group than in the control group. All PROMs, excluding the VR-12 mental score, showed significant improvements compared with baseline at all postoperative time points for both the BMAC and control groups.The addition of an autologous BMAC injection during APM did not result in significant changes in IKDC scores or radiographic outcomes at the 1-year postoperative mark. Secondary PROM scores were generally comparable between the 2 groups, but there was higher minimal clinically important difference achievement for the KOOS Sport and KOOS Symptoms at 1 year postoperatively in the BMAC group. In patients with symptoms consistent with a meniscal tear who had concomitant mild OA, the addition of BMAC to arthroscopic debridement did not affect the outcome.NCT02582489 (ClinicalTrials.gov) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]