Back to Search Start Over

Accelerated versus Standard Rehabilitation after Meniscus Allograft Transplantation in the Knee.

Authors :
Rucinski K
Stannard JP
Crecelius C
Nuelle C
Cook JL
Source :
The journal of knee surgery [J Knee Surg] 2024 Aug; Vol. 37 (10), pp. 710-717. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Feb 22.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) is a proven treatment option for patients with symptomatic irreparable meniscus deficiency. When patients are adherent to prescribed postoperative restriction and rehabilitation protocols, outcomes after MAT are considered good to excellent. However, nonadherence to standard protocols is common and can be associated with undesirable outcomes and patient dissatisfaction. Based on demonstrated safety for early weight-bearing following MAT in conjunction with significant advances in graft preservation and surgical techniques, our joint preservation center implemented a shift in practice toward accelerated weight-bearing following MAT and designed this study to test the hypothesis that accelerated rehabilitation would be associated with superior adherence, patient-reported outcomes, and patient satisfaction, without diminishing patient safety, when compared with standard rehabilitation. Patients were included for analyses when they had undergone fresh or fresh-frozen MAT using a double bone plug technique for treatment of medial or lateral meniscus deficiency and had at least 1-year treatment outcomes recorded. The results of this study revealed that patients who were prescribed accelerated rehabilitation after MAT were significantly more adherent than patients who were prescribed standard rehabilitation and reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in knee pain and function for at least 1-year following MAT, whereas those in the standard cohort did not. While not statistically different, treatment failure rate was lower in the accelerated rehabilitation cohort when compared with the standard rehabilitation cohort (11 vs. 29%). Importantly, initial outcomes for revision MAT were associated with short-term success in all the patients who opted for this option in the study population. These data suggest that accelerated weight-bearing after MAT is safe, promotes patient adherence, and is associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported knee pain and function at early and mid-term follow-up.<br />Competing Interests: • J.P.S. is a board or committee member for the American Orthopaedic Association; is a board or committee member for AO Foundation; is a board or committee member for AO North America; is a paid consultant and receives research support from Arthrex, Inc; is a paid consultant for DePuy, Johnson & Johnson Company; is on the editorial or governing board for the Journal of Knee Surgery; is a board or committee member for Mid-America Orthopaedic Association; receives research support from National Institutes of Health (NIAMS & NICHD); is a paid consultant for Orthopedic Designs North America; is a paid consultant for Smith & Nephew; receives publishing royalties, financial or material support from Thieme; and receives research support from U.S. Department of Defense.• C.W.N. is a board or committee member for AAOS; is a board or committee member for American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine; receives other financial or material support from AO Foundation; is a paid presenter or speaker for Arthrex, Inc; is on the editorial or governing board, receives publishing royalties, financial or material support from Arthroscopy; is a board or committee member for Arthroscopy Association of North America; is a paid consultant for Guidepoint Consulting; and is a paid presenter or speaker for Vericel, Inc.• J.L.C. receives research support from AANA; receives research support from AO Trauma; receives IP royalties, is a paid consultant and receives research support from Arthrex, Inc; is a paid consultant from Bioventus; is a paid consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim; is a paid consultant and receives research support from Collagen Matrix Inc; receives research support from GE Healthcare; is on the editorial or governing board of the Journal of Knee Surgery; is a board or committee member for Midwest Transplant Network; is a board or committee member, receives IP royalties and research support from Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation; receives research support from National Institutes of Health (NIAMS & NICHD); receives research support from OREF; receives research support from Orthopaedic Trauma Association; receives research support from PCORI; receives research support from Regenosine; receives research support from SITES Medical; receives publishing royalties, financial or material support from Thieme; is a paid consultant for Trupanion; and receives research support from U.S. Department of Defense.• K.R. and C.C. have no conflict of interest to disclose.<br /> (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1938-2480
Volume :
37
Issue :
10
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
The journal of knee surgery
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
38388175
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2274-6914