Search

Purpose: We undertook a systematic review to assess a number of the technical aspects of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) that have not been covered in other reviews. Specific variables studied included the indications for MAT, graft fixation method, rehabilitation protocols, outcome scores, and definition of failure., Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to determine the outcomes of meniscal transplantation at greater than 2 years postoperatively. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed with a PRISMA checklist. The search was completed on January 5, 2014., Results: These queries returned 629 results from which 41 articles were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. No studies in this review were randomized or controlled., Conclusions: MAT is a worthwhile procedure, with evidence that it provides pain relief and improved function, and good results reported in mid- to long-term studies. The procedure should be considered only in a patient with localized pain and a stable (or stabilized) and well-aligned (or realigned) knee. The controversial areas studied in this review include the following: there is no evidence to support fixation with either bone plugs or soft tissue; there is no standardized rehabilitation program, but it appears that full weight bearing by 6 weeks is not detrimental; and a clear and uniform definition of failure and use of consistent outcome scores would aid future reporting and analysis of the results of meniscal transplantation., Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies., (Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Monitoring of a patient with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is required after initial treatment to ensure early detection and correction of complications or poor progression. We established the current practice of surveillance in DDH in the UK. A protocol has been designed at this unit with the aim of identifying the stages in the progression of DDH when imaging of the hip is necessary to detect failure or possible complications of treatment. The outcomes and secondary procedure rates under the surveillance protocol used at this unit, for a UK population, have been reviewed with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. Frequency of follow-up has been reported as yearly or more frequently until skeletal maturity by 70% of respondents. Ninety patients presenting with DDH were managed under the protocol developed at this unit, with equivalent outcomes as those in patients who reported yearly follow-up. Following our proposed protocol we believe it is possible to limit disruption to the patient's life, reduce costs and maintain compliance and ensure timely detection of any complications, without significant increase in secondary procedure rates.