The MeTeOR trial (Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research): rationale and design features

Radiographic Changes Five Years After Treatment of Meniscal Tear and Osteoarthritic Changes

OBJECTIVE

Meniscal tear in persons aged ≥45 years is typically managed with physical therapy (PT), and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is offered to those who do not respond. Prior studies suggest APM may be associated with greater progression of radiographic changes.

METHODS

We assessed changes between baseline and 60 months in the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade and OARSI radiographic score (including subscores for joint space narrowing and osteophytes) in subjects aged 45-85 years enrolled into a seven-center randomized trial comparing outcomes of APM with PT for meniscal tear, osteoarthritis changes, and knee pain. The primary analysis classified subjects according to treatment received. To balance APM and PT groups, we developed a propensity score and used inverse probability weighting (IPW). We imputed a 60-month change in the OARSI score for subjects who underwent total knee replacement (TKR). In a sensitivity analysis, we classified subjects by randomization group.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 142 subjects (100 APM, 42 PT). The mean ± SD weighted baseline OARSI radiographic score was 3.8 ± 3.5 in the APM group and 4.0 ± 4.9 in the PT group. OARSI scores increased by a mean of 4.1 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 3.5-4.7) in the APM group and 2.4 (95% CI 1.7-3.2) in the PT group (P < 0.001) due to changes in the osteophyte component. We did not observe statistically significant differences in the KL grade. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar findings to the primary analysis.

CONCLUSION

Subjects treated with APM had greater progression in the OARSI score because of osteophyte progression but not in the KL grade. The clinical implications of these findings require investigation.

The Corticosteroid Meniscectomy Trial of Extended-Release Triamcinolone Injection After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy: Protocol for a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Meniscal tear in older adults often accompanies knee osteoarthritis and is commonly treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) when patients have persistent pain after a trial of physical therapy. Cross-sectional evidence suggests that synovitis is associated with baseline pain in this patient population, but little is known about the relationship between synovitis and postoperative recovery or progression of knee osteoarthritis.

Purpose/Hypothesis

Intra-articular extended-release triamcinolone may reduce inflammation and thereby improve outcomes and slow disease progression. This article presents the rationale behind the Corticosteroid Meniscectomy Trial (CoMeT) and describes its study design and implementation strategies.

Study Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Methods

CoMeT is a 2-arm, 3-center, randomized placebo-controlled trial designed to establish the clinical efficacy of extended-release triamcinolone administered via intra-articular injection immediately after APM. The primary outcome is change in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain subscore at 3-month follow-up. Synovial biopsy, joint fluid aspirate, and urine and blood sample analyses will examine the associations between various objective measures of baseline inflammation and pre- and postoperative outcome measures and clinical responses to triamcinolone intervention. Quantitative 3-T magnetic resonance imaging will evaluate cartilage and meniscal composition and 3-dimensional bone shape to detect early joint degeneration.

Results

We discuss methodologic innovations and challenges.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first randomized double-blind clinical trial that will analyze the effect of extended-release triamcinolone acetonide on pain, magnetic resonance imaging measures of structural change and effusion/synovitis, soluble biomarkers, and synovial tissue transcriptomics after APM.

Association Between Structural Change Over Eighteen Months and Subsequent Symptom Change in Middle-Aged Patients Treated for Meniscal Tear

OBJECTIVE

Middle-aged subjects with meniscal tear treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) experience greater progression of damage to joint structures on imaging than subjects treated nonoperatively. It is unclear whether these changes are clinically relevant. The goal of this study was to assess whether worsening in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-assessed tissue damage over 18 months leads to subsequent worsening in knee pain over the subsequent 3.5 years.

METHODS

We used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial of APM versus physical therapy for subjects ages ≥45 years with knee pain, cartilage damage, and meniscal tear. We assessed whether change in cartilage surface area damage score (and other structural measures) from baseline to 18 months, assessed on MRI with the MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score (MOAKS) system, was associated with change in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score (range 0-100; 100 = worst) from 18 to 60 months.

RESULTS

The primary analysis included 168 subjects with complete MRI data at baseline and 18 months and KOOS data at 18 and 60 months. We did not observe clinically important associations between change in cartilage surface area score between baseline and 18 months and change in pain scores from 18 to 60 months. Pain scores in the worst tertile for cartilage surface area damage score progression worsened by 0.45 points more than in the best tertile (95% confidence interval -4.45, 5.35). Similarly, we did not observe clinically important associations between changes in bone marrow lesions, osteophytes, or synovitis and subsequent pain.

CONCLUSION

We did not observe clinically important associations between early changes in cartilage damage and other structural measures and worsening in pain over the subsequent 3.5 years. Further follow-up is required to assess this association over a longer follow-up period.

An approach to virtual clinical trial site visits: Lessons from the MeTeOR trial

Objective

To provide a framework for conducting clinical trial site visits virtually over videoconference, and to report on our experience doing so during the twelve-year follow-up of the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial.

Design

Using published FDA guidance and prior literature, we created a structure for virtual site visits that prioritized monitoring for protocol compliance, safety, and data integrity. We conducted site visits in three stages: preparation for the visit, the virtual meeting itself, and follow-up. The preparation phase involved a review of relevant site-specific documents and a written report on the findings prior to the visit. The virtual visit itself was focused on any questions the site staff had about the pre-visit report, observing a mock study visit, touring physical spaces, and understanding the site staff's work environment. In the follow-up phase, we wrote a post-visit report summarizing the discussion during the visit and feedback given by the coordinating site.

Results

We found that the virtual site visits conducted as part of the MeTeOR trial follow-up ran smoothly. Although we could not directly compare in-person and virtual site visits, site staff unanimously appreciated the efficiency and effectiveness of the virtual site visits. We noted that displaying physical workspaces over videoconferencing was difficult, and a notable drawback to this method.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first published framework for conducting virtual clinical trial site visits. Conducting these visits virtually confer several advantages in terms of time, money, and efficiency.

Osteoarthritis Bone Marrow Lesions

Assessment and treatment of Bone Marrow Lesions (BMLs) could ultimately make step changes to the lives of people with osteoarthritis (OA). We here review the imaging and pathological characteristics of OA-BMLs, their differential diagnosis and measurement, and cross-sectional and longitudinal associations with pain and OA structural progression. We discuss how biomechanical and cellular factors may contribute to BML pathogenesis, and how pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions that target BMLs might reduce pain and OA structural progression. We critically appraise semiquantitative and quantitative methods for assessing BMLs, and their potential utilities for identifying people at risk of symptomatic and structural OA progression, and evaluating treatment responses. New interventions that target OA-BMLs should both confirm their importance, and reduce the unacceptable burden of OA.

Cost-Effectiveness of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy and Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscal Tear

OBJECTIVE

We examined the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for concomitant meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis (OA) involving arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery and physical therapy (PT).

METHODS

We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated Monte Carlo microsimulation, to compare three strategies, 1) PT-only, 2) immediate surgery, and 3) PT + optional surgery, for participants whose pain persists following initial PT. We modeled a cohort with baseline meniscal tear, OA, and demographics from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus PT. We estimated risks and costs of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy complications and accounted for heightened OA progression post surgery using published data. We estimated surgery use rates and treatment efficacies using MeTeOR data. We considered a 5-year time horizon, discounted costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) 3% per year and conducted sensitivity analyses. We report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Relative to PT-only, PT + optional surgery added 0.0651 QALY and $2,010 over 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $30,900 per QALY). Relative to PT + optional surgery, immediate surgery added 0.0065 QALY and $3080 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $473,800 per QALY). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were sensitive to optional surgery efficacy in the PT + optional surgery strategy. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PT + optional surgery was cost-effective in 51% of simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of both $50,000 per QALY and $100,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

First-line arthroscopic partial meniscectomy has a prohibitively high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Under base case assumptions, second-line arthroscopic partial meniscectomy offered to participants with persistent pain following initial PT is cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds between $31,000 and $473,000 per QALY. Our analyses suggest that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy can be a high-value treatment option for patients with meniscal tear and OA when performed following an initial PT course and should remain a covered treatment option.

Five-Year Structural Changes in Patients with Meniscal Tear and Osteoarthritis: Data from an RCT of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy vs. Physical Therapy

OBJECTIVE

Data from long-term follow-up of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) vs. non-operative therapy or sham have suggested that APM may be associated with increased risk of worsening in radiographic features of osteoarthritis (OA). Our objective was to estimate the risk of MRI-based OA structural changes using baseline, 18-month, and 60-month MRI data from an RCT of APM vs. physical therapy in participants with meniscal tear and OA.

METHODS

We used data from the MeTeOR (Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research) Trial. MRIs were read using the MRI OA Knee Score (MOAKS). We used linear mixed effects models to examine the association between treatment group and continuous MOAKS summary scores, and Poisson regression to assess categorical change in joint structure. Analyses assessed change from baseline to 18 months and 18-to-60 months. We performed both intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses.

RESULTS

The analytic sample included 302 participants. For both treatment groups, more change was seen over the earlier (baseline - 18 months) interval than the later interval. APM was associated with increased risk of any worsening in cartilage surface area damage score (relative risk 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.61), osteophytes, and effusion-synovitis over the earlier time period. Only change in osteophytes was significantly different between treatment groups in the later time period.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest the association between APM and MRI-based changes is most apparent in the 18 months after surgery. The reason for the attenuation of this association over longer follow-up merits further investigation.

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears)

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy).

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I² = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I² = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I² = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I² = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I² = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.

Deep learning for large scale MRI-based morphological phenotyping of osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) develops through heterogenous pathophysiologic pathways. As a result, no regulatory agency approved disease modifying OA drugs are available to date. Stratifying knees into MRI-based morphological phenotypes may provide insight into predicting future OA incidence, leading to improved inclusion criteria and efficacy of therapeutics. We trained convolutional neural networks to classify bone, meniscus/cartilage, inflammatory, and hypertrophy phenotypes in knee MRIs from participants in the Osteoarthritis Initiative (n = 4791). We investigated cross-sectional association between baseline morphological phenotypes and baseline structural OA (Kellgren Lawrence grade > 1) and symptomatic OA. Among participants without baseline OA, we evaluated association of baseline phenotypes with 48-month incidence of structural OA and symptomatic OA. The area under the curve of bone, meniscus/cartilage, inflammatory, and hypertrophy phenotype neural network classifiers was 0.89 ± 0.01, 0.93 ± 0.03, 0.96 ± 0.02, and 0.93 ± 0.02, respectively (mean ± standard deviation). Among those with no baseline OA, bone phenotype (OR: 2.99 (95%CI: 1.59-5.62)) and hypertrophy phenotype (OR: 5.80 (95%CI: 1.82-18.5)) each respectively increased odds of developing incident structural OA and symptomatic OA at 48 months. All phenotypes except meniscus/cartilage increased odds of undergoing total knee replacement within 96 months. Artificial intelligence can rapidly stratify knees into structural phenotypes associated with incident OA and total knee replacement, which may aid in stratifying patients for clinical trials of targeted therapeutics.

Association Between Baseline "Meniscal symptoms" and Outcomes of Operative and Non-Operative Treatment of Meniscal Tear in Patients with Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with meniscal tears reporting "meniscal symptoms" such as catching or locking, have traditionally undergone arthroscopy. We investigated whether patients with meniscal tears who report "meniscal symptoms" have greater improvement with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) than physical therapy (PT).

METHODS

We used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, which randomized participants with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and meniscal tear to APM or PT. The frequency of each "meniscal symptom" (clicking, catching, popping, intermittent locking, giving way, swelling) was measured at baseline and 6-months. We used linear regression models to determine whether the difference in improvement in KOOS Pain at 6-months between those treated with APM versus PT was modified by the presence of each "meniscal symptom". We also determined the percent of participants with resolution of "meniscal symptoms" by treatment group.

RESULTS

We included 287 participants. The presence (vs. absence) of any of the "meniscal symptoms" did not modify the improvement in KOOS Pain between APM vs. PT by more than 0.5 SD (all p-interaction >0.05). APM led to greater resolution of intermittent locking and clicking than PT (locking 70% vs 46%, clicking 41% vs 25%). No difference in resolution of the other "meniscal symptoms" was observed.

CONCLUSION

"Meniscal symptoms" were not associated with improved pain relief. Although symptoms of clicking and intermittent locking had a greater reduction in the APM group, the presence of "meniscal symptoms" in isolation should not inform clinical decisions surrounding APM vs. PT in patients with meniscal tear and knee OA.

Collaboration in Hand Surgery: Experiences From Silicone Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Finger Replantation and Amputation Challenges in Assessing Impairment, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness, Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial, and Surgery of the Ulnar Nerve

Outcomes research has historically been driven by single-center investigations. However, multicenter studies represent an opportunity to overcome challenges associated with single-center studies, including generalizability and adequate power. In hand surgery, most clinical trials are single-center studies, with few having randomized controls and blinding of both participants and assessors. This pervasive issue jeopardizes the integrity of evidence-based practice in the field. Because healthcare payers emphasize applying the best available evidence to justify medical services, multicenter research collaborations are increasingly recognized as an avenue for efficiently generating high-quality evidence. Although no study design is perfect, the potential advantages of multicenter trials include generalizability of the results, larger sample sizes, and a collaboration of experienced investigators poised to optimize protocol development and study conduct. As the era of single-center studies shifts toward investment in multicenter trials and clinical registries, investigators will inevitably be faced with the challenges of conducting or contributing to multicenter research collaborations. We present our experiences in conducting multicenter investigations to provide insight into this demanding and rewarding frontier of research.

Early Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Changes in Patients With Meniscal Tear and Osteoarthritis: Eighteen-Month Data From a Randomized Controlled Trial of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Versus Physical Therapy

OBJECTIVE

The present study was undertaken to evaluate changes in knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings over the course of 18 months in subjects with osteoarthritic change and meniscal tear treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) or nonoperatively with physical therapy (PT).

METHODS

We used 18-month follow-up data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research Trial. MRI results were read with reference to the MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score. We focused on 18-month change in bone marrow lesions (BMLs), cartilage thickness, cartilage surface area, osteophyte size, effusion-synovitis, and Hoffa-synovitis. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess associations between MRI-based changes in each feature and treatment type.

RESULTS

A total of 351 subjects were randomized, and 225 had both baseline and 18-month MRI results. In both treatment groups, patients experienced substantial changes in several MRI-based markers. In 60% of the APM group, versus 33% of the PT group, cartilage surface area damage advanced in ≥2 subregions (adjusted odds ratio 4.2 [95% confidence interval 2.0-9.0). Patients who underwent APM also had greater advancement in scores for osteophytes and effusion-synovitis. We did not find significant associations between treatment type and change in cartilage thickness, BMLs, or Hoffa-synovitis.

CONCLUSION

This cohort of patients with meniscal tear and osteoarthritis showed marked advancement in MRI-based features over 18 months. Patients treated with APM showed more advancement in some features compared to those treated nonoperatively. The clinical relevance of these early findings is unknown and requires further study.

Comparison of Clinical and Semiquantitative Cartilage Grading Systems in Predicting Outcomes After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

OBJECTIVE. Cartilage loss on preoperative knee MRI is a predictor of poor outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability to predict outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy with a clinically used modified Outerbridge system versus a semiquantitative MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score system for grading cartilage loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Patients who underwent preoperative knee MRI within 6 months of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and who had outcomes available from the time of surgery and 1 year later were eligible for inclusion. Cases were evaluated by two radiologists and one radiology fellow with the use of both grading systems. The accuracy of each system in discriminating between surgical success and failure was estimated using the ROC curve (AUC) with 95% CIs. A Wald test was used to assess noninferiority of the clinical grading system. Interreader agreement regarding the accuracy of the grading systems in predicting outcomes was also compared. RESULTS. A total of 78 patients (38 women and 40 men; mean age, 56.6 years) were included in the study. A prediction model using clinical grading (AUC = 0.695; 95% CI, 0.566-0.824) was noninferior (p = 0.047) to a model using MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score grading (AUC = 0.683; 95% CI, 0.539-0.827). Both MRI prediction models performed better than a model using demographic characteristics only (AUC = 0.667; 95% CI, 0.522-0.812). Inter-reader agreement with clinical grading (80.8%) was higher than that with MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score grading (65.0%; p = 0.012). CONCLUSION. A clinically used system to grade cartilage loss on MRI is as effective as a semiquantitative system for predicting outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, while also offering improved interreader agreement.

Five-Year Outcome of Operative and Nonoperative Management of Meniscal Tear in Persons Older Than Forty-Five Years

OBJECTIVE

To determine the 5-year outcome of treatment for meniscal tear in osteoarthritis.

METHODS

We examined 5-year follow-up data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research trial (METEOR) of physical therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. We performed primary intent-to-treat (ITT) and secondary as-treated analyses. The primary outcome measure was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain scale; total knee replacement (TKR) was a secondary outcome measure. We used piecewise linear mixed models to describe change in KOOS pain. We calculated 5-year cumulative TKR incidence and used a Cox model to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for TKR, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-one participants were randomized. In the ITT analysis, the KOOS pain scores were ~46 (scale of 0 [no pain] to 100 [most pain]) at baseline in both groups. Pain scores improved substantially in both groups over the first 3 months, continued to improve through the next 24 months (to ~18 in each group), and were stable at 24-60 months. Results of the as-treated analyses of the KOOS pain score were similar. Twenty-five participants (7.1% [95% CI 4.4-9.8%]) underwent TKR over 5 years. In the ITT model, the HR for TKR was 2.0 (95% CI 0.8-4.9) for subjects randomized to the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group, compared to those randomized to the physical therapy group. In the as-treated analysis, the HR for TKR was 4.9 (95% CI 1.1-20.9) for subjects ultimately treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, compared to those treated nonoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Pain improved considerably in both groups over 60 months. While ITT analysis revealed no statistically significant differences following TKR, greater frequency of TKR in those undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy merits further study.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of conservative treatments for chronic lower extremity musculoskeletal complaints

Objective

The aim was to appraise and synthesize studies evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of conservative interventions for chronic lower extremity musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions and describe their characteristics, including the type of economic evaluation, primary outcomes and which conditions.

Methods

The search strategy related to economic evaluations of lower limb MSK conditions that used conservative therapies. Eight electronic databases were searched (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, NHSEED and Proquest), as were the reference lists from included articles. The quality of articles was appraised using a modified version of the economic evaluations’ reporting checklist (economic) and The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias (clinical).

Results

Twenty-six studies were eligible and included in the review. Economic evaluations of conservative interventions for OA or pain affecting the knee/hip (n = 25; 93%) were most common. The main approaches adopted were cost–utility analysis (n = 17; 68%) or cost–effectiveness analysis (n = 5; 19%). Two studies involved interventions including footwear/foot orthoses; for heel pain (n = 1; 4%) and overuse injuries (n = 1; 4%). Fifty per cent of economic evaluations adopted the EQ-5D-3L as the primary outcome measure for quality of life and quality-adjusted life year calculations.

Conclusion

Economic evaluations have been conducted largely for exercise-based interventions for MSK conditions of the hip and knee. Few economic evaluations have been conducted for other clinically important lower limb MSK conditions. A matrix presentation of costs mapped with outcomes indicated increasing costs with either no difference or improvements in clinical effectiveness. The majority of economic evaluations were of good reporting quality, as were the accompanying clinical studies.

Surgical interventions for symptomatic mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis affecting the knee is common and represents a continuum of disease from early cartilage thinning to full-thickness cartilage loss, bony erosion, and deformity. Many studies do not stratify their results based on the severity of the disease at baseline or recruitment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical intervention for the management of symptomatic mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis defined as knee pain and radiographic evidence of non-end stage osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1, 2, 3 or equivalent on MRI/arthroscopy). Outcomes of interest included pain, function, radiographic progression, quality of life, short-term serious adverse events, re-operation rates and withdrawals due to adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase up to May 2018. We also conducted searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. Authors of trials were contacted if some but not all their participants appeared to fit our inclusion criteria.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared surgery to non-surgical interventions (including sham and placebo control groups, exercise or physiotherapy, and analgesic or other medication), injectable therapies, and trials that compared one type of surgical intervention to another surgical intervention in people with symptomatic mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data using standardised forms. We analysed the quality of evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of five studies involving 566 participants were identified as eligible for this review. Single studies compared arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to physical therapy (320 participants), arthroscopic surgery (debridement ± synovectomy ± chondroplasty) to closed needle joint lavage with saline (32 participants) and high tibial osteotomy surgery to knee joint distraction surgery (62 participants). Two studies (152 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery (washout ± debridement; debridement) to a hyaluronic acid injection. Only one study was at low risk of selection bias, and due to the difficulty of blinding participants to their treatment, all studies were at risk of performance and detection bias.Reporting of results in this summary has been restricted to the primary comparison: surgical intervention versus non-surgical intervention.A single study, included 320 participants with symptoms consistent with meniscal tear. All subjects had the meniscal tear confirmed on knee MRI and radiographic evidence of mild to moderate osteoarthritis (osteophytes, cartilage defect or joint space narrowing). Patients with severe osteoarthritis (KL grade 4) were excluded. The study compared arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and physical therapy to physical therapy alone (a six-week individualised progressive home exercise program). This study was at low risk of selection bias and outcome reporting biases, but was susceptible to performance and detection biases. A high rate of cross-over (30.2%) occurred from the physical therapy group to the arthroscopic group.Low-quality evidence suggests there may be little difference in pain and function at 12 months follow-up in people who have arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and those who have physical therapy. Evidence was downgraded to low quality due to risk of bias and imprecision.Mean pain was 19.3 points on a 0 to 100 point KOOS pain scale with physical therapy at 12 months follow-up and was 0.2 points better with surgery (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.05 better to 3.65 points worse with surgery, an absolute improvement of 0.2% (95% CI 4% better to 4% worse) and relative improvement 0.4% (95% CI 9% better to 8% worse) (low quality evidence). Mean function was 14.5 on a 0 to 100 point KOOS function scale with physical therapy at 12 months follow-up and 0.8 points better with surgery (95% CI 4.3 better to 2.7 worse); 0.8% absolute improvement (95% CI 4% better to 3% worse) and 2.1% relative improvement (95% CI 11% better to 7% worse) (low quality evidence).Radiographic structural osteoarthritis progression and quality of life outcomes were not reported.Due to very low quality evidence, we are uncertain if surgery is associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events, incidence of total knee replacement or withdrawal rates. Evidence was downgraded twice due to very low event rates, and once for risk of bias.At 12 months, the surgery group had a total of three serious adverse events including fatal pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction and hypoxaemia. The physical therapy alone group had two serious adverse events including sudden death and stroke (Peto OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.27 to 9.21); 1% more events with surgery (95% CI 2% less to 3% more) and 58% relative change (95% CI 73% less to 821% more). One participant in each group withdrew due to adverse events.Two of 164 participants (1.2%) in the physical therapy group and three of 156 in the surgery group underwent conversion to total knee replacement within 12 months (Peto OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 7.13); 1% more events with surgery (95% CI 2% less to 5% more); 76% relative change (95% CI 57% less to 613% more).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found no placebo-or sham-controlled trials of surgery in participants with symptomatic mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis. There was low quality evidence that there may be no evidence of a difference between arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery and a home exercise program for the treatment of this condition. Similarly, low-quality evidence from a few small trials indicates there may not be any benefit of arthroscopic surgery over other non-surgical treatments including saline irrigation and hyaluronic acid injection, or one type of surgery over another. We are uncertain of the risk of adverse events or of progressing to total knee replacement due to very small event rates. Thus, there is uncertainty around the current evidence to support or oppose the use of surgery in mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis. As no benefit has been demonstrated from the low quality trials included in this review, it is possible that future higher quality trials for these surgical interventions may not contradict these results.

Subgroups of patients with osteoarthritis and medial meniscus tear or crystal arthropathy benefit from arthroscopic treatment

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of prospective randomized controlled trials comparing arthroscopic treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA) with either other therapeutic interventions or sham treatment.

METHODS

A systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) about arthroscopic treatment (AT) for knee OA was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Arthroscopic treatment included procedures such as lavage, debridement and partial meniscectomy of the knee. Data source was PubMed central.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles could be included. Five studies compared interventive AT with either sham surgery, lavage or diagnostic arthroscopy. Nine trials compared AT with another active intervention (exercise, steroid injection, hyaluronic acid injection). In ten trials, the clinical scores improved after arthroscopic treatment of knee OA in comparison to the baseline. In seven trials, there was a significant difference in the final clinical outcome with higher scores for patients after arthroscopic OA treatment in comparison to a control group. In four trials, the intention to treat analysis revealed no significant difference between arthroscopic OA treatment and the control group. In one of those trials, which compared arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) with exercise, the cross over rate from exercise to AT was 34.9%. The clinical scores of cross-over patients improved after APM. In one study, the subgroup analysis revealed that patients with tears of the anterior two-thirds of the medial meniscus or any lateral meniscus tear had a higher probability of improvement after arthroscopic surgery than did patients with other intraarticular pathology. There was no difference in the side effects between patients with AT and the control group. Despite acceptable scores in the methodological quality assessment, significant flaws could be found in all studies. These flaws include bad description of the exact surgical technique or poor control of postoperative use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID).

CONCLUSION

Results of RCTs comparing AT with other treatment options were heterogeneous. AT in OA patients is not useless because there is evidence that a subgroup of patients with non-traumatic flap tears of the medial meniscus or patients with crystal arthropathy benefit from arthroscopy. This topic has a high relevance because several health insurances do not reimburse arthroscopy for patients with OA anymore. The results of these randomized studies, however, should be interpreted with care because in many studies, the use of other therapeutic variables such as pain killers or NSAIDs was not controlled or reported.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Influence of Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features on Outcome of Arthroscopic Meniscectomy and Physical Therapy Treatment of Meniscal Tears in Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is used to treat meniscal tears, although its efficacy is controversial.

PURPOSE

This study used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine characteristics that lead to greater benefit from APM and physical therapy (PT) than from PT alone among patients with meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Using data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, the authors first assessed whether the effect of treatment on pain scores at 6 months differed according to baseline MRI features (bone marrow lesions, cartilage and meniscal damage). Second, the authors summed MRI features associated with differential pain relief between APM and PT to create a "damage score," which included bone marrow lesion number and cartilage damage size with possible values of 0 (least damage), 1 (moderate), and 2 (greatest). The authors used linear models to determine whether the association between damage score and pain relief at 6 months differed for APM versus PT.

RESULTS

The study included 220 participants: 13%, had the least damage; 52%, moderate; and 34%, greatest. Although treatment type did not significantly modify the association of damage score and change in pain ( P interaction = .13), those with the least damage and moderate damage had greater improvement with APM than with PT in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale-by 15 and 7 points, respectively. Those with the greatest damage had a similar improvement with APM and PT.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with osteoarthritis and meniscal tear, those with less intra-articular damage on MRI may have greater improvement in pain with APM and PT than with PT alone. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously owing to the limited sample size.

Association of Changes in Effusion-Synovitis With Progression of Cartilage Damage Over Eighteen Months in Patients With Osteoarthritis and Meniscal Tear

OBJECTIVE

Synovitis is a feature of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and meniscal tear and has been associated with articular cartilage damage. This study was undertaken to examine the associations of baseline effusion-synovitis and changes in effusion-synovitis with changes in cartilage damage in a cohort with OA and meniscal tear.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial of surgery versus physical therapy for treatment of meniscal tear. We performed semiquantitative grading of effusion-synovitis and cartilage damage on magnetic resonance imaging, and dichotomized effusion-synovitis as none/small (minimal) and medium/large (extensive). We assessed the association of baseline effusion-synovitis and changes in effusion-synovitis with changes in cartilage damage size and depth over 18 months, using Poisson regression models. Analyses were adjusted for patient demographic characteristics, treatment, and baseline cartilage damage.

RESULTS

We analyzed 221 participants. Over 18 months, effusion-synovitis was persistently minimal in 45.3% and persistently extensive in 21.3% of the patients. The remaining 33.5% of the patients had minimal synovitis on one occasion and extensive synovitis on the other. In adjusted analyses, patients with extensive effusion-synovitis at baseline had a relative risk (RR) of progression of cartilage damage depth of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.0-2.7). Compared to those with persistently minimal effusion-synovitis, those with persistently extensive effusion-synovitis had a significantly increased risk of progression of cartilage damage depth (RR 2.0 [95% CI 1.1-3.4]).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the presence of extensive effusion-synovitis is associated with subsequent progression of cartilage damage over 18 months. The persistence of extensive effusion-synovitis over time is associated with the greatest risk of concurrent cartilage damage progression.

A quantitative metric for knee osteoarthritis: reference values of joint space loss

OBJECTIVES

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) onset and progression has been defined with transitions in Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade or Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Joint Space Narrowing (JSN) grade. We quantitatively describe one-year transitions in KL grade and JSN, using fixed joint space width (fJSW), among knees with or at risk of OA.

METHODS

Radiographic assessments from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) were used to identify transitions in KLG and JSN grade between consecutive annual visits. The fJSW was measured in the medial and lateral compartments. The distribution of change in fJSW for KLG and JSN transitions were described, and mean change in fJSW was estimated using mixed models.

RESULTS

KL grade and JSN scores were available for about 20,000 annual transitions from 6047 knees contributed by 3389 participants. Knees that remained stable in KL or OARSI-JSN over 1 year had mean medial fJSW loss between -0.06 and -0.19 mm/year. Transition from KL grade 0 to 1, 0 to 2, and KL 1 to 2 were similar with respect to mean medial fJSW loss (0.18-0.28 mm). Greatest annual changes in medial fJSW corresponded to KL 0 to 3 (1.62 mm), KL 2 to 4 (1.23 mm) and JSN 0 to 2 (1.85 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Anchoring quantitatively measured loss of joint space width to transitions in KL grade and JSN provides reference values based on traditional definitions of knee OA onset and progression.

Associations among knee muscle strength, structural damage, and pain and mobility in individuals with osteoarthritis and symptomatic meniscal tear

Background

Sufficient lower extremity muscle strength is necessary for performing functional tasks, and individuals with knee osteoarthritis demonstrate thigh muscle weakness compared to controls. It has been suggested that lower muscle strength is associated with a variety of clinical features including pain, mobility, and functional performance, yet these relationships have not been fully explored in patients with symptomatic meniscal tear in addition to knee osteoarthritis. Our purpose was to evaluate the associations of quadriceps and hamstrings muscle strength with structural damage and clinical features in individuals with knee osteoarthritis and symptomatic meniscal tear.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study using baseline data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial. We assessed structural damage using Kellgren-Lawrence grade and the magnetic resonance imaging osteoarthritis knee score (MOAKS) for cartilage damage. We used the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) to evaluate pain, symptoms, and activities of daily living (ADL), and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test to assess mobility. We assessed quadriceps and hamstrings strength using a hand-held dynamometer and classified each into quartiles (Q). We used Chi square tests to evaluate the association between strength and structural damage; and separate analysis of covariance models to establish the association between pain, symptoms, ADL and mobility with strength, after adjusting for demographic characteristics (age, sex and BMI) and structural damage.

Results

Two hundred fifty two participants were evaluated. For quadriceps strength, subjects in the strongest quartile scored 14 and 13 points higher on the KOOS Pain and ADL subscales, respectively, and completed the TUG two seconds faster than subjects in the weakest quartile. For hamstrings strength, subjects in the strongest quartile scored 13 and 14 points higher on the KOOS pain and ADL subscales, respectively, and completed the TUG two seconds faster than subjects in the weakest quartile. Strength was not associated with structural damage.

Conclusions

Greater quadriceps and hamstrings muscle strength was associated with less pain, less difficulty completing activities of daily living, and better mobility. These relationships should be evaluated longitudinally.

Associations among meniscal damage, meniscal symptoms and knee pain severity

OBJECTIVE

Meniscal tears occur frequently in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of our study was to determine whether meniscal damage identified on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is associated with the severity of knee pain or the frequency of meniscal symptoms in patients with knee OA.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study using data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial. We characterized meniscal damage hierarchically as: root tear; maceration; long and short complex or horizontal tears; and simple tears. Subjects completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Scale and a survey of frequency of meniscal symptoms. We used multivariable general linear models to assess the relationships between meniscal damage and 1) pain severity; and 2) meniscal symptoms, after adjusting for demographic and radiographic features. In further analysis root tear was considered as a binary variable.

RESULTS

Analysis included 227 knees. Root tears were present in 19%, maceration in 14%, long complex or horizontal tears in 22%, short complex or horizontal tears in 30%, and simple tears in 14%. Root tears were associated with higher WOMAC pain scores. The adjusted mean WOMAC pain score was 45.2 (standard error (SE) 2.7) for those with root tear and 38.7 (SE 1.2) for subjects without root tear (P = 0.03). We did not find statistically significant associations between meniscal morphology and frequency of meniscal symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Root tears were associated with greater pain than meniscal tears or maceration. We did not find a relationship between meniscal damage and meniscal symptoms.

Predictors and Outcomes of Crossover to Surgery from Physical Therapy for Meniscal Tear and Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial Comparing Physical Therapy and Surgery

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) combined with physical therapy (PT) have yielded pain relief similar to that provided by PT alone in randomized trials of subjects with a degenerative meniscal tear. However, many patients randomized to PT received APM before assessment of the primary outcome. We sought to identify factors associated with crossing over to APM and to compare pain relief between patients who had crossed over to APM and those who had been randomized to APM.

METHODS

We used data from the MeTeOR (Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research) Trial of APM with PT versus PT alone in subjects ≥45 years old who had mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis and a degenerative meniscal tear. We assessed independent predictors of crossover to APM among those randomized to PT. We also compared pain relief at 6 months among those randomized to PT who crossed over to APM, those who did not cross over, and those originally randomized to APM.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-four subjects were randomized to and received APM and 177 were randomized to PT, of whom 48 (27%) crossed over to receive APM in the first 140 days after randomization. In multivariate analyses, factors associated with a higher likelihood of crossing over to APM among those who had originally been randomized to PT included a baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Score of ≥40 (risk ratio [RR] = 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00, 3.93) and symptom duration of <1 year (RR = 1.74; 95% CI = 0.98, 3.08). Eighty-one percent of subjects who crossed over to APM and 82% of those randomized to APM had an improvement of ≥10 points in their pain score at 6 months, as did 73% of those who were randomized to and received only PT.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects who crossed over to APM had presented with a shorter symptom duration and greater baseline pain than those who did not cross over from PT. Subjects who crossed over had rates of surgical success similar to those of the patients who had been randomized to surgery. Our findings also suggest that an initial course of rigorous PT prior to APM may not compromise surgical outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy or Conservative Treatment for Nonobstructive Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the outcome of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) with conservative treatment in adults with nonobstructive meniscal tears and to recommend a treatment of choice.

METHODS

We systematically searched the databases of MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane, the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database from inception to May 2, 2016. Two authors independently searched the literature and selected eligible studies. The meta-analyses used a random-effects model. The primary outcome was physical function, measured by knee-specific patient-reported outcomes. Secondary outcomes included knee pain, activity level, the progression of osteoarthritis, adverse events, general health, and quality of life.

RESULTS

We included 6 randomized controlled trials, with a total of 773 patients, of whom 378 were randomized to APM and 395 were randomized to the control treatment. After pooling the data of 5 studies, we found small significant differences in favor of the APM group for physical function at 2 to 3 months (mean difference [MD] = 3.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-5.93; P = .01; I(2) = 0% [Lysholm knee score]), and at 6 months (MD = 3.56; 95% CI = 0.24-6.88; P = .04; I(2) = 0% (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index); standardized MD = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.01-0.32; P = .03; I(2) = 0% [Lysholm knee score, KOOS, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index]). We also found small significant differences for pain at 6 months (MD = 3.56; 95% CI = 0.18-6.95; P = .04; I(2) = 0% [KOOS] and MD = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.28-0.83; P ≤ .0001; I(2) = 0% [visual analog scale and numeric rating scale]). We found no significant differences after 12 and 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

We found small, although statistically significant, favorable results of APM up to 6 months for physical function and pain. However, we found no differences at longer follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis of Level I studies.

Cartilage-Repair Innovation at a Standstill: Methodologic and Regulatory Pathways to Breaking Free

Articular cartilage defects strongly predispose patients to developing early joint degeneration and osteoarthritis, but for more than 15 years, no new cartilage-repair technologies that we know of have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Many studies examining novel approaches to cartilage repair, including cell, tissue, or matrix-based techniques, have shown great promise, but completing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish safety and efficacy has been challenging, providing a major barrier to bringing these innovations into clinical use. In this article, we review reasons that surgical innovations are not well-suited for testing through RCTs. We also discuss how analytical methods for reducing bias, such as propensity scoring, make prospective observational studies a potentially viable alternative for testing the safety and efficacy of cartilage-repair and other novel therapies, offering the real possibility of therapeutic innovation.

Predictors of Exercise Adherence in Patients With Meniscal Tear and Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of poor exercise adherence in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and meniscal tear.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data gathered over the first 12 weeks in the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Seven referral centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Most of the patients in the MeTeOR trial (N=325 of 351) were included in the analysis, each of whom was aged ≥45 years and had a meniscal tear and osteoarthritic changes on imaging studies; 26 were excluded because of missing data from which to derive the primary outcome variable.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients received a structured, supervised exercise program focused on strengthening, along with prescribed home exercises; half were randomly assigned to also receive arthroscopic partial meniscectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Poor exercise adherence through 12 weeks, defined as performing <50% of prescribed exercise.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight percent of the MeTeOR cohort showed poor exercise adherence. In the multivariate model, adjusting for treatment group, those who earned ≤$29,000 per year had 1.64 times the risk of nonadherence (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.43) than those who earned >$100,000 per year; and those without baseline pain with pivoting and twisting had 1.60 times greater risk of nonadherence than those with these symptoms (95% CI, 1.14-2.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Low income was associated with poor exercise adherence among patients aged ≥45 years with OA and a meniscal tear, as was absence of pain with pivoting and twisting. Our findings highlight the need for further research into exercise adherence and for interventions to enhance adherence among those with low incomes.

The Treatment of Non-Traumatic Meniscus Lesions

BACKGROUND

Most meniscus lesions are of non-traumatic origin. The indications for partial meniscectomy are controversial.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing partial meniscectomy with non-surgical treatment.

RESULTS

Of 6870 articles retrieved by the literature search, we were able to include six in this systematic review. Five trials showed no difference between the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and those who underwent control treatment (arthroscopic lavage, physiotherapy, glucocorticoids). In three trials, however, symptoms improved in 21-30% of the patients in the physiotherapy group only after they underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (crossover design). In two trials, the percentage of patients who crossed over from one treatment arm to the other was markedly lower; in one, the frequency of crossing over was not reported. In one RCT, the patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy had significantly less pain and other symptoms. Five of the six trials had acceptable scores for method, but all had weaknesses. These mainly concerned the description of the surgical techniques and the failure to take account of analgesic use-in particular, the use of non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

CONCLUSION

For most patients with non-traumatic meniscus lesions, surgical and non-surgical treatments seem to be of equal value; only one of the six included trials revealed lower pain and symptom scores after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. In multiple trials, however, the crossover analysis showed that non-surgical treatment fails for some patients. These patients may benefit from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Further trials are needed to better define this subgroup of patients.

Defining the Value of Future Research to Identify the Preferred Treatment of Meniscal Tear in the Presence of Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is extensively used to relieve pain in patients with symptomatic meniscal tear (MT) and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Recent studies have failed to show the superiority of APM compared to other treatments. We aim to examine whether existing evidence is sufficient to reject use of APM as a cost-effective treatment for MT+OA.

METHODS

We built a patient-level microsimulation using Monte Carlo methods and evaluated three strategies: Physical therapy ('PT') alone; PT followed by APM if subjects continued to experience pain ('Delayed APM'); and 'Immediate APM'. Our subject population was US adults with symptomatic MT and knee OA over a 10 year time horizon. We assessed treatment outcomes using societal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incorporating productivity costs as a sensitivity analysis. We also conducted a value-of-information analysis using probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Calculated ICERs were estimated to be $12,900/QALY for Delayed APM as compared to PT and $103,200/QALY for Immediate APM as compared to Delayed APM. In sensitivity analyses, inclusion of time costs made Delayed APM cost-saving as compared to PT. Improving efficacy of Delayed APM led to higher incremental costs and lower incremental effectiveness of Immediate APM in comparison to Delayed APM. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that PT had 3.0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY. Delayed APM was cost effective 57.7% of the time at WTP = $50,000/QALY and 50.2% at WTP = $100,000/QALY. The probability of Immediate APM being cost-effective did not exceed 50% unless WTP exceeded $103,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that current cost-effectiveness evidence does not support unqualified rejection of either Immediate or Delayed APM for the treatment of MT+OA. The amount to which society would be willing to pay for additional information on treatment outcomes greatly exceeds the cost of conducting another randomized controlled trial on APM.

The Impact of the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) Research on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Orthopaedic Practice

With an estimated 200,000 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions performed annually in the United States, there is an emphasis on determining patient-specific information to help educate patients on expected clinically relevant outcomes. The Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network consortium was created in 2002 to enroll and longitudinally follow a large population cohort of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. The study group has enrolled >4,400 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from seven institutions to establish the large level I prospective anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outcomes cohort. The group has become more than a database with information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injuries; it has helped to establish a new benchmark for conducting multicenter, multisurgeon orthopaedic research. The changes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practice resulting from the group include the use of autograft for high school, college, and competitive athletes in their primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Other modifications include treatment options for meniscus and cartilage injuries, as well as lifestyle choices made after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

The role of arthroscopy in the management of knee osteoarthritis

Technological advances throughout the 20th century enabled an increase in arthroscopic knee surgery, particularly arthroscopic debridement for osteoarthritis (OA) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for symptomatic meniscal tear in the setting of OA. However, evaluation of the outcomes of these procedures lagged behind their rising popularity. Not until the early 2000s were rigorous outcomes studies conducted; these showed that arthroscopic debridement for OA was no better than a sham procedure in relieving knee pain or improving functional status, and that patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for a degenerative meniscal tear generally did not show more improvement than those who underwent sham meniscal resection or an intensive course of physical therapy. Though the number of arthroscopic knee procedures for OA performed each year has begun to decline, there remains a significant gap between the evidence and actual practice. Further investigation is needed to shore up the evidence base and bring policy and practice in line with rigorous research.

Osteoarthritis year 2013 in review: imaging

PURPOSE

To review recent original research publications related to imaging of osteoarthritis (OA) and identify emerging trends and significant advances.

METHODS

Relevant articles were identified through a search of the PubMed database using the query terms "OA" in combination with "imaging", "radiography", "MRI", "ultrasound", "computed tomography", and "nuclear medicine"; either published or in press between March 2012 and March 2013. Abstracts were reviewed to exclude review articles, case reports, and studies not focused on imaging using routine clinical imaging measures.

RESULTS

Initial query yielded 932 references, which were reduced to 328 citations following the initial review. MRI (118 references) and radiography (129 refs) remain the primary imaging modalities in OA studies, with fewer reports using computed tomography (CT) (35 refs) and ultrasound (23 refs). MRI parametric mapping techniques remain an active research area (33 refs) with growth in T2*- and T1-rho mapping publications compared to prior years. Although the knee is the major joint studied (210 refs) there is interest in the hip (106 refs) and hand (29 refs). Imaging continues to focus on evaluation of cartilage (173 refs) and bone (119 refs).

CONCLUSION

Imaging plays a major role in OA research with publications continuing along traditional lines of investigation. Translational and clinical research application of compositional MRI techniques is becoming more common driven in part by the availability of T2 mapping data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). New imaging techniques continue to be developed with a goal of identifying methods with greater specificity and responsiveness to changes in the joint, and novel functional neuroimaging techniques to study central pain. Publications related to imaging of OA continue to be heavily focused on quantitative and semiquantitative MRI evaluation of the knee with increasing application of compositional MRI techniques in the hip.

Surgery versus physical therapy for a meniscal tear and osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Whether arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for symptomatic patients with a meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis results in better functional outcomes than nonoperative therapy is uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving symptomatic patients 45 years of age or older with a meniscal tear and evidence of mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis on imaging. We randomly assigned 351 patients to surgery and postoperative physical therapy or to a standardized physical-therapy regimen (with the option to cross over to surgery at the discretion of the patient and surgeon). The patients were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was the difference between the groups with respect to the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical-function score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms) 6 months after randomization.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean improvement in the WOMAC score after 6 months was 20.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.9 to 23.9) in the surgical group and 18.5 (95% CI, 15.6 to 21.5) in the physical-therapy group (mean difference, 2.4 points; 95% CI, -1.8 to 6.5). At 6 months, 51 active participants in the study who were assigned to physical therapy alone (30%) had undergone surgery, and 9 patients assigned to surgery (6%) had not undergone surgery. The results at 12 months were similar to those at 6 months. The frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the intention-to-treat analysis, we did not find significant differences between the study groups in functional improvement 6 months after randomization; however, 30% of the patients who were assigned to physical therapy alone underwent surgery within 6 months. (Funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00597012.).

Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study (FIDELITY): a protocol for a randomised, placebo surgery controlled trial on the efficacy of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for patients with degenerative meniscus injury with a novel 'RCT within-a-cohort' study design

INTRODUCTION

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) to treat degenerative meniscus injury is the most common orthopaedic procedure. However, valid evidence of the efficacy of APM is lacking. Controlling for the placebo effect of any medical intervention is important, but seems particularly pertinent for the assessment of APM, as the symptoms commonly attributed to a degenerative meniscal injury (medial joint line symptoms and perceived disability) are subjective and display considerable fluctuation, and accordingly difficult to gauge objectively.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multicentre, parallel randomised, placebo surgery controlled trial is being carried out to assess the efficacy of APM for patients from 35 to 65 years of age with a degenerative meniscus injury. Patients with degenerative medial meniscus tear and medial joint line symptoms, without clinical or radiographic osteoarthritis of the index knee, were enrolled and then randomly assigned (1 : 1) to either APM or diagnostic arthroscopy (placebo surgery). Patients are followed up for 12 months. According to the prior power calculation, 140 patients were randomised. The two randomised patient groups will be compared at 12 months with intention-to-treat analysis. To safeguard against bias, patients, healthcare providers, data collectors, data analysts, outcome adjudicators and the researchers interpreting the findings will be blind to the patients' interventions (APM/placebo). Primary outcomes are Lysholm knee score (a generic knee instrument), knee pain (using a numerical rating scale), and WOMET score (a disease-specific, health-related quality of life index). The secondary outcome is 15D (a generic quality of life instrument). Further, in one of the five centres recruiting patients for the randomised controlled trial (RCT), all patients scheduled for knee arthroscopy due to a degenerative meniscus injury are prospectively followed up using the same protocol as in the RCT to provide an external validation cohort. In this article, we present and discuss our study design, focusing particularly on the internal and external validity of our trial and the ethics of carrying out a placebo surgery controlled trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol has been approved by the institutional review board of the Pirkanmaa Hospital District and the trial has been duly registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The findings of this study will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00549172.