Moving orthopaedic procedures out of the operating theatre:Outpatient needle arthroscopy can reduce cost & waste, and increase inpatient capacity compared to conventional knee arthroscopy

Advancing knee diagnostics and treatment: the role of needle arthroscopy

Knee needle arthroscopy (NA) represents a minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic approach for managing a variety of knee joint pathologies. This innovative technique, characterized by a thin, flexible, needle-like device, offers a less invasive alternative to conventional arthroscopy (CA), enabling outpatient procedures with reduced postoperative pain, faster recovery, and minimal scarring. This systematic review examines the current applications, diagnostic accuracy, clinical outcomes, and patient benefits of needle arthroscopy. Studies reveal that NA demonstrates comparable diagnostic efficacy to CA and superior accuracy to MRI for intra-articular knee pathology, particularly in meniscal injuries and anterior cruciate ligament assessments. NA facilitates real-time visualization and interventions under local anesthesia, promoting cost-efficiency and patient satisfaction. Despite its advantages, there are challenges such as limited visualization and technical proficiency. While NA emerges as a promising modality in knee diagnostics and treatment, further large-scale clinical trials are essential to validate its long-term efficacy, safety, and broader applications.

First-in-human exploratory trial assessing safety, feasibility, and efficacy of artificial protein (silk-elastin) in promoting healing in patients with meniscus injuries

Meniscal tears, especially those in avascular regions, pose a significant risk for osteoarthritis if repair fails. While meniscal repair is the preferred method for preserving knee function, it often has a high failure rate in avascular zones. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and potential efficacy of silk-elastin (SE), an artificial protein with wound-healing properties, for enhancing meniscal repair. Eight patients with meniscal tears in avascular areas underwent arthroscopic repair followed by SE application, including cases of lateral and medial tears, discoid lateral meniscus, and bucket-handle tears. No adverse events or reactions were attributed to SE. At 3 months post-surgery, clinical outcomes and repair sites were evaluated using MRI and arthroscopy. Significant improvements were observed in Lysholm and visual analog scale scores (P < 0.05), with the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores showing significant improvement in the symptom subscale. MRI findings indicated one patient with grade 1 healing, three with grade 2, and four with grade 3 (unhealed). Arthroscopically, six patients demonstrated completely healed menisci, while two showed incomplete healing; none were classified as "unhealed." These findings suggest that SE is safe and may support meniscal healing in avascular zones, indicating its potential to improve repair outcomes.

Comparison of needle and conventional arthroscopy for visualisation of predefined anatomical structures of the knee joint: a feasibility study in human cadavers and patients

BACKGROUND

In terms of the optics used for Knee arthroscopy, a large number of different endoscopes are currently available. However, the use of the 30° optics in knee arthroscopy has been established as the standard procedure for many years. As early as the 1990s, needle arthroscopy was occasionally used as a diagnostic tool. In addition to the development of conventional optics technology in terms of camera and resolution, needle arthroscopes are now available with chip-on-tip image sensor technology. To date, no study has compared the performance of this kind of needle arthroscopy versus standard arthroscopy in the clinical setting in terms of the visibility of anatomical landmarks. In this monocentric prospective feasibility study, our aim was to evaluate predefined anatomical landmarks of the knee joint using needle arthroscopy (0° optics) and conventional knee arthroscopy (30° optics) and compare their performance during knee surgery.

METHODS

Examinations were performed on eight cadavers and seven patients who required elective knee arthroscopy. Two surgeons independently performed the examinations on these 15 knee joints, so that we were able to compare a total of 30 examinations. The focus was on the anatomical landmarks that could be visualized during a conventional diagnostic knee arthroscopy procedure. The quality of visibility was evaluated using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

In summary, the average visibility for all the anatomic landmarks was rated 4.98/ 5 for the arthroscopy using 30° optics. For needle arthroscopy, an average score of 4.89/ 5 was obtained. Comparatively, the needle arthroscope showed slightly limited visibility of the retropatellar gliding surface in eight (4.5/ 5 vs. 5/ 5), medial rim of the patella in four (4.85/ 5 vs. 5/ 5), and suprapatellar recess in four (4.83/ 5 vs. 5/ 5) cases. Needle arthroscopy was slightly better at visualizing the posterior horn of the medial meniscus in four knee joints (4.9/ 5 vs. 4.85/ 5).

CONCLUSION

Needle arthroscopy is a promising technology with advantages in terms of minimally invasive access and good visibility of anatomical landmarks. However, it also highlights some limitations, particularly in cases with challenging anatomy or the need for a wide field of view.

In-Office Needle Arthroscopy With Cartilage Allograft Extracellular Matrix Application for Cartilage Lesions of the Knee

Chondral and osteochondral lesions of the knee are a common cause of pain, mechanical symptoms, and swelling for patients. The benefits of in-office needle arthroscopy (IONA) include the ability to diagnose and treat chondral or osteochondral lesions in the office, quicker patient recovery, reduced cost, and improved patient satisfaction. The purpose of this technical note is to describe the technique for performing in-office needle arthroscopy for chondral or osteochondral contained lesions of the knee, with special consideration of the technique for obtaining adequate local anesthesia, proper indications, adequate visualization, and the advantages of performing these procedures in the office rather than the operating room.

The role of outpatient needle arthroscopy in the diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal complaints: A systematic review of the Arthrex NanoScope

BACKGROUND

The aim was to review the literature regarding needle arthroscopy using the Arthrex NanoScope system and evaluate: (1) the diagnostic indications, utility, and efficacy compared to conventional methods, and (2) the therapeutic indications, safety, and reported outcomes.

METHODS

Searches of three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed) were conducted in November 2021 using MeSH terms: 'needle arthroscopy', 'human', 'in office arthroscopy', 'needle arthroscope', 'nanoscopic', 'surgery', 'nanoscope' and 'percutaneous arthroscopy'. The included studies were catalogued, quality-assessed using Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS), and analysed using the Cochrane data collection templates for randomised control trials (RCT) and non-randomised control trials (non-RCT). The majority of studies were non-numerical and were examined using qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

The search yielded 314 studies, 22 of which were included for analysis. MINORS assessment was applicable to four studies. Mean MINORS was 10.7/16 with the most frequent limitations being lack of unbiased endpoint or sample size calculation. The level of evidence ranged from level IV-V. Diagnostic and therapeutic indications were described in relation to the: knee (n = 10); shoulder (n = 6); foot/ankle (n = 3); elbow (n = 2), and miscellaneous (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Needle arthroscopy can augment the diagnostic process in patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints, and may provide benefits in terms of diagnostic accuracy, cost efficiency, timeliness of investigation, and a visually impactful patient-centred consultation. Therapeutic interventions are reported by a small number of pioneer groups who report some benefits over conventional arthroscopy. The available literature remains small and of low quality, and more evidence is needed with regards to patient selection, efficacy, safety, and cost.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V (based on the weakest study included in the Systematic Review).