When taking a step back is a veritable leap forward. Reversing decades of arthroscopy for managing joint pain: five reasons that could explain declining rates of common arthroscopic surgeries

Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy for a Degenerative Meniscus Tear Is Not Cost Effective Compared With Placebo Surgery: An Economic Evaluation Based on the FIDELITY Trial Data

BACKGROUND

In patients with a degenerative tear of the medial meniscus, recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown no treatment benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) over conservative treatment or placebo surgery. Yet, advocates of APM still argue that APM is cost effective. Giving advocates of APM their due, we note that there is evidence from the treatment of other musculoskeletal complaints to suggest that a treatment may prove cost effective even in the absence of improvements in efficacy outcomes, as it may lead to other benefits, such as diminished productivity loss and reduced costs, and so the question of cost effectiveness needs to be answered for APM.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does APM result in lower postoperative costs compared with placebo surgery? (2) Is APM cost-effective compared with placebo surgery?

METHODS

One hundred forty-six adults aged 35 to 65 years with knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis according to the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria were randomized to APM (n = 70) or placebo surgery (n = 76). In the APM and placebo surgery groups, mean age was 52 ± 7 years and 52 ± 7 years, and 60% (42 of 70) and 62% (47 of 76) of participants were men, respectively. There were no between-group differences in baseline characteristics. In both groups, a standard diagnostic arthroscopy was first performed. Thereafter, in the APM group, the torn meniscus was trimmed to solid meniscus tissue, whereas in the placebo surgery group, APM was carefully mimicked but no resection of meniscal tissue was performed; as such, surgical costs were the same in both arms and were not included in the analyses. All patients received identical postoperative care including a graduated home-based exercise program. At the 2-year follow-up, two patients were lost to follow-up, both in the placebo surgery group. Cost effectiveness over the 2-year trial period was computed as incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), using both the societal (primary) and healthcare system (secondary) perspectives. To be able to consider APM cost effective, the CEA analysis should yield a positive INMB value. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to assess uncertainty. Several one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

APM did not deliver lower postoperative costs, nor did it convincingly improve quality of life scores when compared with placebo surgery. From a societal perspective, APM was associated with € 971 (95% CI -2013 to 4017) higher costs and 0.015 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.041) improved QALYs over 2-year follow-up compared with placebo surgery. Both differences were statistically inconclusive (a wide 95% CI that crossed the line of no difference). Using the conventional willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 35,000 per QALY, APM resulted in a negative INMB of € -460 (95% CI -3757 to 2698). In our analysis, APM would result in a positive INMB only when the WTP threshold rises to about € 65,000 per QALY. The wide 95% CIs suggests uncertain cost effectiveness irrespective of chosen WTP threshold.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study lend further support to clinical practice guidelines recommending against the use of APM in patients with a degenerative meniscus tear. Given the robustness of existing evidence demonstrating no benefit or cost effectiveness of APM over nonsurgical treatment or placebo surgery, future research is unlikely to alter this conclusion.Level of Evidence Level III, economic analysis.

Application of arthroscopic system in the treatment of lactational breast abscess

Purpose

Optimal treatment of breast abscesses has been controversial. Herein, we report an innovative method for the operative treatment of lactational mammary abscesses.

Methods

Nineteen lactating patients diagnosed with breast abscesses were enrolled in the study, and abscess debridement and drainage were performed using an arthroscopic system. The clinical characteristics of the patients were recorded to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and cosmetic results of arthroscopic surgery for breast abscesses.

Results

All 19 patients were cured and did not relapse within the 6-month-follow-up period. One patient stopped breastfeeding due to breast leakage. All patients were satisfied with the postoperative appearance of the breast.

Conclusion

Arthroscopic debridement and drainage are effective treatment methods for lactational breast abscesses, with a high cure rate, few complications, and satisfactory cosmetic outcomes.

Anatomical description and short-term follow up clinical results for ultrasound-guided injection of medial collateral ligament bursa: New conservative treatment option for symptomatic degenerative medial meniscus tear

BACKGROUND

In this study, we investigated newly developed ultrasound (US)-guided medial collateral ligament (MCL) bursa injection as a conservative therapy for symptomatic degenerative medial meniscal (MM) tears. We aimed to describe the anatomical target and precise technique of this injection, confirm its accuracy using fresh cadaveric knees, and then evaluate preliminary clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Anatomical studies were performed on three fresh cadavers. For the clinical study, 50 patients with medial knee joint pain without knee osteoarthritis were treated with US-guided MCL bursa injection. Severity of pain was assessed pre-injection, and 1 week and 4 weeks post-injection using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). Clinical success was defined as a full return to daily activities. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 1 week of the first injection. Patients who underwent surgery within 12 months of the first injection were investigated as clinically unsuccessful cases, and MRI and arthroscopic findings were examined.

RESULTS

Compared with pre-injection (6.8 ± 1.2), the average NRS score was significantly lower at 1 week (1.8 ± 2.0) and at 4 weeks (1.5 ± 1.7) post-injection (both P < 0.01). The primary clinical success rate was 76.0%, and injection-related adverse events were not observed. Nine patients underwent surgery (arthroscopic surgery for degenerative flap tear (n = 7) and high tibial osteotomy for medial meniscus posterior root tear and proximal tibial malalignment (n = 2)).

CONCLUSIONS

US-guided MCL bursa injection is safe, reproducible, and effective for symptomatic MM degenerative tears. However, US-guided injections of the MCL bursa may be ineffective for flap tears and posterior root tears.

Editorial Commentary: Surgical Management of Degenerative Meniscus Lesions Is a Second- But Not a First-Line Treatment

The 20-year progression of osteoarthritis (OA) after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients aged between 50 and 70 bears a long-term risk of conversion to total knee arthroplasty of 15.7%. Negative predictors at the time of surgery are the degree of knee OA, lateral meniscectomy, age at surgery, and malalignment. This confirms the evolution of the natural history of knee OA, but most importantly, it provides arguments to further restrain indications of APM in degenerative meniscus lesions (DMLs). An improved understanding of the consequences of APM for DMLs allows to increasingly limit the indications of this procedure, thus rendering it pertinent and efficient. Over the last years, the numbers of APM have been declining in several countries. This reduction required many surgeons to undergo a paradigm shift. This change cannot be induced by an anathema but by educational programs and guidelines based on broad consensus of the surgical communities, like the 2016 European Meniscus Consensus Project initiated by the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA). It provided a reference frame for the management of DMLs, based both on scientific literature and balanced expert opinion. The proposed decisional algorithm introduced APM not as a first- but as a second-line treatment of DMLs in symptomatic patients. A recent survey presented earlier this month at the international conference "The Meniscus" among ESSKA members showed that a majority of the 460 respondents were familiar with the ESSKA consensus and that 66% of them changed their practice following its publication. Paradigm changes take time. The history of meniscus repair showed that it takes many years to develop medical and surgical practice. And there is a good reason for this. Paradigms are not fashionable that come and go with the seasons. The medical and orthopaedic communities need to get them right by improving clinical science and balancing discussions.