Search

Purpose: To report midterm outcomes after primary medial and lateral meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) with fresh-frozen allografts implanted with the bridge-in-slot technique in the adolescent patient population., Methods: Adolescent patients less than 18 years old at the time of primary MAT from 1999 to 2016 were retrospectively identified. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, Lysholm, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales scores were collected before surgery and at 1-year, 2-year, and a minimum 5-year follow-up. Thresholds for achieving clinically significant outcomes were calculated, and the proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) was determined. Meniscus reoperation (partial, subtotal, or total meniscectomy, repair, or failure) and failure (revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty) rates were determined., Results: Forty-four (female n = 33; male n = 11) of 62 identified patients met inclusion criteria and were followed for a mean of 9.5 ± 3.8 years (range, 5.0-17.7). Lateral MAT was performed in most patients (n = 35/44 [80%]). Isolated MAT was performed in 27 (61%) patients. Common concomitant procedures included osteochondral allograft transplantation (32%), autologous chondrocyte implantation (18%), and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (14%). MCID, PASS, and SCB were achieved by patients at a minimum 5-year follow-up for IKDC (62%; 76%; 31%), Lysholm (62%; 79%; 23%), and KOOS questionnaires (Pain [65%; 81%; 41%], Symptoms [58%; 81%; 47%], Activities of Daily Living [53%; 77%; 35%], Sport [86%; 75%; 50%], and Quality of Life [59%; 81%; 59%]), respectively. Fourteen patients (32%) underwent reoperation at an average of 5.0 ± 4.3 years (range, 0.8-14.0) after MAT. Three (7%) patients met criteria for failure, requiring revision MAT an average of 3.8 ± 1.1 years (range, 2.8-4.9) after transplantation. No patients underwent arthroplasty. Overall survival free from failure at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years was 100%, 100%, 93%, and 93%, respectively. At the time of final follow-up, 80% of patients reported satisfaction with their current physical status., Conclusions: Primary MAT in adolescent patients resulted in significant and durable functional improvements at mid- to long-term follow-up. At an average of 9.5 years after surgery, meniscal reoperation rate was 32% whereas graft survival free of revision MAT was 93%. Adolescents undergoing MAT demonstrated similar functional outcomes and graft survivability when compared to available adult MAT literature., Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective case series., (Copyright © 2023 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been shown to provide clinical benefits in patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency in the short term and midterm. There is, however, a paucity of data regarding long-term outcomes after MAT using fresh-frozen allografts and the bridge-in-slot technique., Purpose: To report clinical outcomes and revision rates after primary MAT with fresh-frozen allografts and the bridge-in-slot technique in a large case series of patients at a 10-year minimum follow-up., Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on patients undergoing primary MAT between 2001 and 2012. Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales were collected preoperatively and at 1-, 2-, 5-, and minimum 10-year follow-ups. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to identify variables associated with reoperation and failure, defined as revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty. Reoperation was defined as a subsequent surgical intervention on the transplanted meniscus, including partial or total meniscectomy, meniscal repair, or failure as defined in the previous sentence., Results: A total of 174 patients undergoing MAT met the inclusion criteria and were followed for a mean of 12.7 ± 2.7 years (range, 10.0-21.0 years). The mean age at surgery was 28.3 ± 10.1 years. The patients were predominantly female (n = 92; 53%), and medial MAT was the most commonly performed procedure (n = 91; 52%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 115 patients (66%), with the most common procedure being osteochondral allograft transplantation (n = 59; 34%). Patients demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvements at all time points for all patient-reported outcome measures ( P ≤ .0001). A total of 65 patients (37%) underwent a meniscal reoperation at a mean time of 6.6 ± 5.5 years (range, 0.3-16.7 years) postoperatively. A total of 40 patients (23%) met the criteria for failure at a mean time of 7.3 ± 5.0 years (range, 1.0-17.4 years) after MAT, with 22 of these patients having undergone a previous meniscal reoperation. At the final follow-up, 13 patients (7%) had undergone revision MAT and 27 (15%) had converted to arthroplasty. The MAT survival rates free of meniscal reoperation and failure were 73% and 85% at 10 years and 60% and 72% at 15 years, respectively. At the time of the final follow-up, 86% of patients reported that they were satisfied with their overall postoperative condition., Conclusion: Primary MAT demonstrates efficacy and durability with high rates of patient satisfaction at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients should be counseled that although reoperation rates may approach 40% at 15 years, rates of overall revision MAT and conversion to arthroplasty remain low at long-term follow-up.

Background: 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. Purpose: 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. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. Registration: NCT02582489 (ClinicalTrials.gov) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meniscal ramp lesions are injuries of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus at the meniscocapsular junction or the meniscotibial ligament and are frequently associated with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. To review the current literature on meniscal ramp lesion management to better define the indications for and outcomes of repair. A narrative literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Studies of all evidence levels (I-V) pertaining to meniscal ramp lesions were reviewed and included. The incidence of ramp lesions has been reported between 16% and 42%. Arthroscopy remains the diagnostic gold standard as magnetic resonance imaging has limited sensitivity. Biomechanically, ramp lesions are known to increase anterior tibial translation and rotational laxity. Clinical investigations regarding optimal management are largely limited to studies of low evidence levels. While case series have demonstrated that repair is safe and efficacious, comparative studies have failed to suggest that repair of stable lesions results in superior outcomes when compared to conservative treatment approaches. However, repair may be warranted in unstable ramp lesion injuries despite the increased risk for revision surgery. While there is evidence to suggest that ramp lesion repair can restore joint kinematics, the current body of clinical literature fails to suggest that outcomes following repair are superior to injuries managed conservatively. The current body of clinical literature is limited, and further robust, long-term study is warranted to better guide injury diagnosis and management protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]