Better outcome from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy than skin incisions only? A sham-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 35-55 years with knee pain and an MRI-verified meniscal tear

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for the degenerative meniscus tear: a comparison of patients included in RCTs and prospective cohort studies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Concerns exist regarding the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) to treat degenerative meniscus tears. It has been suggested that study populations are not representative of subjects selected for surgery in daily clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to compare patients included in trials and prospective cohort studies that received APM for a degenerative meniscus tear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individual participant data from 4 RCTs and 2 cohort studies undergoing APM were collected. 1,970 patients were analyzed: 605 patients included in RCTs and 1,365 included in the cohorts. We compared patient and disease characteristics, knee pain, overall knee function, and health-related quality of life at baseline between the RCT and cohort groups using standardized differences, ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates, and graphical methods such as quantile-quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots.

RESULTS

Differences between RCT and the cohort were observed primarily in age (younger patients in the cohort; standardized difference: 0.32) and disease severity, with the RCT group having more severe symptoms (standardized difference: 0.38). While knee pain, overall knee function, and quality of life generally showed minimal differences between the 2 groups, it is noteworthy that the largest observed difference was in knee pain, where the cohort group scored 7 points worse (95% confidence interval 5-9, standardized difference: 0.29).

CONCLUSION

Patients in RCTs were largely representative of those in cohort studies regarding baseline scores, though variations in age and disease severity were observed. Younger patients with less severe osteoarthritis were more common in the cohort; however, trial participants still appear to be broadly representative of the target population.

The Fragility of Statistical Significance in Sham Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the stability of statistical findings among sham surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in orthopaedic surgery using fragility analysis.

METHODS

PubMed systematic review was conducted to include studies reporting dichotomous outcomes pertaining to sham surgery. The final review included eight RCTs involving only partial meniscectomies and vertebroplasties from 2009 to 2020. With a fixed sample size with dichotomous outcome measures (events versus non-events), the Total Fragility Index (TFI), which is composed of the fragility index (FI) and reverse fragility index (RFI), was calculated by altering the ratio of events to non-events in an iterative fashion until results were reversed from significant to nonsignificant findings (FI) or vice versa (RFI). The TFI, FI, and RFI were divided by their sample sizes to obtain the respective total fragility quotient, fragility quotient (FQ), and reverse fragility quotient. Median fragility indices and quotients were reported for all studies.

RESULTS

The eight RCTs included 50 dichotomous outcomes involving either partial meniscectomies or vertebroplasties, with a median TFI and total fragility quotient of 5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4 to 6] and 0.035 (IQR 0.028 to 0.048), respectively, indicating that a median of five total patients or 3.5 per 100 patients would need to experience a different outcome to reverse significant or insignificant findings for each of the eight trials. Among the 8 statistically significant ( P < 0.05) outcome events (16%), the respective FI and FQ were 2 (IQR 1 to 5) and 0.018 (IQR 0.010 to 0.044). Among the 42 statistically insignificant outcome events (84%), the respective RFI and reverse fragility quotient were 5 (IQR 4 to 6) and 0.04 (IQR 0.034 to 0.048). The median number of patients lost to follow-up was 1.5 (IQR 0.5 to 2).

CONCLUSION

The unstable findings in partial meniscectomy and vertebroplasty sham surgical RCTs undermine their study conclusions and recommendations. We recommend using fragility analysis in future sham surgical RCTs to contextualize statistical findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Systematic Review.

Patients with discoid menisci have similar clinical outcomes to those without discoid menisci when undergoing surgical intervention: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To compare post-operative clinical outcomes of discoid meniscus tear procedures such as saucerization with or without repair with those of non-discoid meniscus tears such as meniscectomy or repair in skeletally mature patients with no concomitant injuries.

METHODS

Three databases MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 3rd, 2022 for literature describing patient-reported outcome measures after meniscus surgery in discoid or non-discoid meniscus tears. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Clinical outcome data on Lysholm, Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), revision rates, and complications were recorded, with MINORS and Detsky scores used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies comprising 2213 patients were included with a mean age of 38.6 years (range: 9.0-64.4). The mean follow-up time was 54.1 months (range: 1-234) and the average percentage of female participants was 46.8% (range: 9.5-95.5). The mean change between pre-operative and post-operative Lysholm scores ranged from 21.0-39.0, 7.4-24.1, and 24.2-48.4 in the discoid, non-discoid meniscectomy, and non-discoid repair groups, respectively. The mean change in Tegner scores ranged from 0.0 to 2.3, 1.3, and 0.4-1.3 in the discoid, non-discoid meniscectomy, and non-discoid repair groups, respectively. Pre-operative IKDC scores were not reported, however mean post-operative IKDC scores ranged from 77.4 to 96.0, 46.9 to 85.7, and 63.1 to 94.0 in discoid, non-discoid meniscectomy, and non-discoid repair groups, respectively. Revision rates for discoid procedures, non-discoid meniscectomies, and non-discoid meniscus repairs ranged from 3.2 to 44.0%, 8.3 to 56.0%, and 5.9 to 28.0%, respectively. The most common reasons for revision were acute trauma and persistent pain.

CONCLUSION

Discoid saucerization procedures with or without repair leads to similar Lysholm scores as non-discoid repair procedures, and similar IKDC scores and revision rates compared to non-discoid meniscectomy or repair procedures. Patients undergoing discoid procedures appeared to have slightly higher Tegner activity scores compared to patients undergoing non-discoid procedures; however this is to be considered in the context of a younger population of patients undergoing discoid procedures than non-discoid procedures. This information can help guide surgeons in the decision-making process when treating patients with discoid menisci, and should guide further investigations on this topic.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The value of reducing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in the treatment of degenerative meniscus tears: a budget impact analysis

AIMS

Numerous studies have shown that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is not (cost-) effective in patients with symptoms attributed to a degenerative meniscus tear. We aimed to assess the budget impact of reducing APM in routine clinical practice in this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A patient-level state transition model was developed to simulate patients recently diagnosed with a degenerative meniscus tear. Three strategies were compared: "current guideline" (i.e., postpone surgery to at least 3 months after diagnosis), "APM at any time" (i.e., APM available directly after diagnosis), and "nonsurgical" (i.e., APM no longer performed). Total societal costs over 5 years were calculated to determine the budget impact. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty.

RESULTS

The average cost per patient over 5 years were EUR 5,077, EUR 4,577, and EUR 4,218, for the "APM at any time," "current guideline," and "nonsurgical" strategy, respectively. Removing APM from the treatment mix (i.e., 30,000 patients per year) in the Netherlands, resulted in a reduction in health care expenditures of EUR 54 million (95 percent confidence interval [CI] EUR 38 million-EUR 70 million) compared to the "current guideline strategy" and EUR 129 million (95 percent CI EUR 102 million-EUR 156 million) compared to the "APM at any time" strategy. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty did not alter our conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial costs can be saved when APM is no longer performed to treat symptoms attributed to degenerative meniscus tears in the Netherlands. It is therefore recommended to further reduce the use of APM to treat degenerative meniscus tears.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy vs non-surgical or sham treatment in patients with MRI-confirmed degenerative meniscus tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis with individual participant data from 605 randomised patients

OBJECTIVE

To identify subgroups of patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed degenerative meniscus tears who may benefit from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in comparison with non-surgical or sham treatment.

METHODS

Individual participant data (IPD) from four RCTs were pooled (605 patients, mean age: 55 (SD: 7.5), 52.4% female) as to investigate the effectiveness of APM in patients with MRI-confirmed degenerative meniscus tears compared to non-surgical or sham treatment. Primary outcomes were knee pain, overall knee function, and health-related quality of life, at 24 months follow-up (0-100). The IPD were analysed in a one- and two-stage meta-analyses. Identification of potential subgroups was performed by testing interaction effects of predefined patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender, mechanical symptoms) and APM for each outcome. Additionally, generalized linear mixed-model trees were used for subgroup detection.

RESULTS

The APM group showed a small improvement over the non-surgical or sham group on knee pain at 24 months follow-up (2.5 points (95% CI: 0.8-4.2) and 2.2 points (95% CI: 0.9-3.6), one- and two-stage analysis, respectively). Overall knee function and health-related quality of life did not differ between the two groups. Across all outcomes, no relevant subgroup of patients who benefitted from APM was detected. The generalized linear mixed-model trees did also not identify a subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

No relevant subgroup of patients was identified that benefitted from APM compared to non-surgical or sham treatment. Since we were not able to identify any subgroup that benefitted from APM, we recommend a restrained policy regarding meniscectomy in patients with degenerative meniscus tears.

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.

The meniscal tear outcome (METRO) review: A systematic review summarising the clinical course and outcomes of patients with a meniscal tear

BACKGROUND

Meniscal tears affect 222 per 100,000 of the population and can be managed non-operatively or operatively with an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), meniscal repair or meniscal transplantation. The purpose of this review is to summarise the outcomes following treatment with a meniscal tear and explore correlations between outcomes.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify prospective studies describing the outcomes of patients with a meniscal tear. Comparisons were made of outcomes between APM and non-operative groups. Outcomes were graphically presented over time for all treatment interventions. Pearson's correlations were calculated between outcome timepoints.

RESULTS

35 studies were included, 28 reported outcomes following APM; four following meniscal repair and three following meniscal transplant. Graphical plots demonstrated a sustained improvement for all treatment interventions. A moderate to very strong correlation was reported between baseline and three-month outcomes. In the medium term, there was small significant difference in outcome between APM and non-operative measures (SMD 0.17; 95 % CI 0.04, 0.29), however, this was not clinically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a meniscal tear demonstrated a sustained initial improvement in function scores, which was true of all treatments examined. APM may have little benefit in older people, however, previous trials did not include patients who meet the current indications for surgery as a result the findings should not be generalised to all patients with a meniscal tear. Further trials are required in patients who meet current operative indications.

No evidence in support of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in adults with degenerative and nonobstructive meniscal symptoms: a level I evidence-based systematic review

PURPOSE

It is unclear whether the results of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) are comparable to a structured physical therapy (PT). This systematic review investigated efficacy of APM in the management of symptomatic meniscal damages in middle aged patients. Current available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared APM performed in isolation or combined with physical therapy versus sham arthroscopy or isolated physical therapy were considered in the present systematic review.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. All the level I RCTs which investigated the efficacy of AMP were accessed. Studies which included elderlies with severe OA were not eligible, nor were those in which APM was combined with other surgical intervention or in patients with unstable knee or with ligaments insufficiency. The risk of bias was assessed using the software Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). To rate the quality of evidence of collected outcomes, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used.

RESULTS

Data from 17 studies (2037 patients) were collected. 48.5% (988 of 2037 patients) were women. The mean age of the patients was 52.7 ± 3.9 years, the mean BMI 27.0 ± 1.3 kg/m². The current evidence suggests no difference in functional PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), clinical PROMs (quality of the evidence: high), pain (quality of the evidence: high), quality of life (quality of the evidence: high), physical performance measures (quality of the evidence: moderate), and OA progression (quality of the evidence: moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of APM in adults with degenerative and nonobstructive meniscal symptoms are limited. The current evidence reports similarity in the outcome between APM and PT. Further long-term RCTs are required to investigate whether APM and PT produce comparable results using validated and reliable PROMs. Moreover, future RCTs should investigate whether patients who might benefit from APM exist, clarifying proper indications and outcomes. High quality investigations are strongly required to establish the optimal PT regimes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Current Controversies in Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the continued controversy among orthopedic surgeons regarding the indications and benefits of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), this review summarizes the current literature, indications, and outcomes of partial meniscectomy to treat symptomatic meniscal tears.

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients with symptomatic meniscal tears, the location and tear pattern play a vital role in clinical management. Tears in the central white-white zone are less amenable to repair due to poor vascularity. Patients may be indicated for APM or non-surgical intervention depending on the tear pattern and symptoms. Non-surgical management for meniscal pathology includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), physical therapy (PT), and intraarticular injections to reduce inflammation and relieve symptoms. There have been several landmark multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the outcomes of APM compared to PT or sham surgery in symptomatic degenerative meniscal tears. These most notably include the 2013 Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) Trial, the 2018 ESCAPE trial, and the sham surgery-controlled Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study (FIDELITY), which failed to identify substantial benefits of APM over nonoperative treatment or even placebo surgery. Despite an abundance of literature exploring outcomes of APM for degenerative meniscus tears, there is little consensus among surgeons about the drivers of good outcomes following APM. It is often difficult to determine if the presenting symptoms are secondary to the meniscus pathology or the degenerative disease in patients with concomitant OA. A central tenet of managing meniscal pathology is to preserve tissue whenever possible. Most RCTs show that exercise therapy may be non-inferior to APM in degenerative tears if repair is not possible. Given this evidence, patients who fail nonoperative treatment should be counseled regarding the risks of APM before proceeding to surgical management.

Benefits and Harms of Interventions With Surgery Compared to Interventions Without Surgery for Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the benefits and harms of interventions with and without surgery for musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.

DESIGN

Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

LITERATURE SEARCH

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL, all up to January 7, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs (English, German, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) of interventions with and without surgery conducted in any setting for any non-fracture MSK condition in adults (mean age: 18+ years) evaluating the outcomes on a continuous (benefits) or count (harms) scale. Outcomes were pain, self-reported physical function, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and death at 1 year.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Random-effects metaanalyses for MSK conditions where there were data from at least 2 trials.

RESULTS

One hundred RCTs (n = 12 645 patients) across 28 different conditions at 9 body sites were included. For 9 out of 13 conditions with data on pain (exceptions include some spine conditions), 11 out of 11 for function, and 9 out of 9 for quality of life, there were no clinically relevant differences (standardized mean difference of 0.50 or above) between interventions with and without surgery. For 13 out of 16 conditions with data on SAEs and 16 out of 16 for death, there were no differences in harms. Only 6 trials were at low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The low certainty of evidence does not support recommending surgery over nonsurgical alternatives for most MSK conditions with available RCTs. Further high-quality RCTs may change this conclusion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(6):312-344. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11075.

Treatment of the syndrome of knee pain and meniscal tear in middle-aged and older persons: A narrative review

Objective:

Design:

Results:

Conclusion:

Maximum subjective outcome improvement is reported by 3 Months following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: A systematic review

Purpose

To review patient outcomes in the literature following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in order to identify when patients report reaching subjective maximal improvement postoperatively.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature from January 2004 to August 2019 was conducted using PRISMA guidelines to identify articles evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) up to a minimum of 6 months after APM in patients >18 years old. Studies were excluded if additional interventions were performed such as repairs, ligamentous reconstruction or repair, cartilaginous manipulation, or revision surgery. PROMs were pooled between studies at preoperative, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 year time points. Weighted averages were used within a mixed model method in order to account for the differences in sample size and variance among studies. Significant improvements in PROMs at various time intervals were statistically analyzed using minimal clinically important difference.

Results

A total of 12 studies including 1663 patients who underwent APM were selected for the review. The pooled cohort consisted of 1033 (62%) males and 630 (38%) females. Significant improvements were demonstrated from preoperative scores to 3 months postoperatively in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subcategories, Lysholm, and visual analog scale scores while no differences were found for Tegner and International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Although statistically significant improvement in PROMs remained at all postoperative time points compared to preoperative scores, no significant differences were observed after 3 months postoperatively.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing APM had significant mean changes in legacy PROMs by 3 months postoperatively that exceeded given minimal clinically important difference values, without further clinically important improvement reported up to 2 years postoperatively.

Study design

Level III, systematic review.

Evaluation of placebo fidelity and trial design methodology in placebo-controlled surgical trials of musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

The number of placebo surgical trials on musculoskeletal conditions is increasing, but little is known about the quality of their design and methods. This review aimed to (1) assess the level of placebo fidelity (ie, degree to which the placebo control mimicked the index procedure) in placebo trials of musculoskeletal surgery, (2) describe the trials' methodological features using the adapted Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) checklist, and (3) describe each trial's characteristics. We searched 4 electronic databases from inception until February 18, 2021, for randomised trials of surgery that included a placebo control for any musculoskeletal condition. Protocols and full text were used to assess placebo fidelity (categorised as minimal, low, or high fidelity). The adapted 26-item ASPIRE checklist was also completed on each trial. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021202131. A total of 30,697 studies were identified in the search, and 22 placebo-controlled surgical trials of 2045 patients included. Thirteen trials (59%) included a high-fidelity placebo control, 7 (32%) used low fidelity, and 2 (9%) minimal fidelity. According to the ASPIRE checklist, included trials had good reporting of the "rationale and ethics" (68% overall) and "design" sections (42%), but few provided enough information on the "conduct" (13%) and "interpretation and translation" (11%) of the placebo trials. Most trials sufficiently reported their rationale and ethics, but interpretation and translation are areas for improvement, including greater stakeholder involvement. Most trials used a high-fidelity placebo procedure suggesting an emphasis on blinding and controlling for nonspecific effects.

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.

Isolated Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Is More Effective at Improving Meniscal Symptoms in Comparison With Mechanical Symptoms in Patients With Concomitant Untreated Chondral Lesions

PURPOSE

To rank Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questions from most to least improvement after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) and compare improvement of meniscal versus mechanical symptoms.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of the Chondral Lesions and Meniscus Procedures (ChAMP) Trial was performed. Inclusion criteria were age 30 years or older with degenerative meniscal tear failing nonoperative management, with or without associated unstable chondral lesions. No chondral debridement was performed. Responses to the 42 KOOS questions ranged from 0 (extreme problems) to 4 (no problems), and were answered preoperatively and at 1 year after isolated APM. The 1-year mean change, or delta (Δ), was calculated for each KOOS question and the Δ for meniscal and mechanical symptoms were statistically compared.

RESULTS

Greatest improvement in 135 eligible patients was observed for questions about (1) awareness of knee problems (Δ = 1.93, standard deviation [SD] = 1.38), (2) frequency of knee pain (Δ = 1.93, SD = 1.29), (3) degree of difficulty while twisting/pivoting on the injured knee (Δ = 1.88, SD = 1.13), (4) degree of difficulty while running (Δ = 1.67, SD = 1.30), and (5) being troubled by lack of confidence in the knee (Δ = 21.67, SD = 1.11). Least improvement was observed for questions about: (1) degree of difficulty while getting on/off the toilet (Δ = 0.94, SD = 0.96), (2) feel grinding or hear clicking when the knee moves (Δ= 0.90, SD = 1.25), 3) degree of difficulty while getting in/out of the bath (Δ= 0.88, SD = 1.00), (4) knee catches/hangs up during movement (Δ= 0.80, SD = 1.09), and (5) the ability to straighten the knee fully (Δ= 0.54, 1.44). There was greater improvement for the KOOS questions pertaining to meniscal versus mechanical symptoms (P < .00001).

CONCLUSIONS

KOOS symptoms as reported by subjects' responses to the questions pertaining to the frequency of knee pain, twisting/pivoting, running, squatting, and jumping showed the most improvement 1 year after isolated APM, whereas those relating to mechanical symptoms improved the least. Focusing on meniscal rather than mechanical symptoms may help surgeons better identify patients expected to benefit from APM.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

Intra-articular Pure Platelet-Rich Plasma Combined With Open-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy Improves Clinical Outcomes and Minimal Joint Space Width Compared With High Tibial Osteotomy Alone in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Study

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical efficacy of the patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis who underwent either opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy alone (HTO) or simultaneous HTO and pure platelet-rich plasma therapy (HTO+P-PRP).

METHODS

Eighty patients were divided into 2 groups randomly, the HTO-alone group (n = 41) and the HTO+P-PRP group (n = 39). Patients were matched for preoperative age, sex, and body mass index. The outcomes studied included visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Lysholm score. The minimum width of medial knee joint (MJSW), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), femoral tibial angle (FTA), and weightbearing line (WBL) were measured preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Paired t test and chi-squared test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. At 1, 6, and 12 months, pain and function scores in the HTO+P-PRP group were better than those in the HTO-alone group, especially at 6 months in Lysholm score (HTO alone, 72.5 ± 10.6; HTO+P-PRP, 83.1 ± 14.7; P = .003, 95% CI -14.13 to -10.42) and WOMAC (HTO alone, 90.3 ± 11.9; HTO+P-PRP, 75.6 ± 15.4; P < .001, 95% CI 13.36 to 20.11). For both groups, no difference was found preoperatively (HTO alone, varus 3.5 ± 3.9; HTO+P-PRP, varus 4.1 ± 4.0; P = .898) or postoperatively (HTO alone, valgus 6.7 ± 4.5; HTO+P-PRP, valgus 7.7 ± 2.3; P = .768) in FTA or WBL. The increase of the MJSW in the HTO+P-PRP group was significantly greater than that in the HTO-alone group during the first year, especially at 6 months (HTO alone, 3.8 ± 1.2 mm; HTO+P-PRP, 4.6 ± 1.1 mm; P = .001, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with HTO alone, HTO combined with intra-articular P-PRP improved the minimum medial knee joint space width during the first year postoperatively. Clinically, a higher proportion of patients in the HTO+P-PRP group exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the first year, especially at 6 months in Lysholm score (HTO alone, 65.9%; HTO+P-PRP, 97.4%) and WOMAC (HTO alone, 82.9%; HTO+P-PRP, 100.0%).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2, prospective comparative study.

Treatment of post-meniscectomy knee symptoms with medial meniscus replacement results in greater pain reduction and functional improvement than non-surgical care

PURPOSE

Partial meniscectomy is a common orthopedic procedure intended to improve knee pain and function in patients with irreparable meniscal tears. However, 6-25% of partial meniscectomy patients experience persistent knee pain after surgery. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving subjects with knee pain following partial meniscectomy, it was hypothesized that treatment with a synthetic medial meniscus replacement (MMR) implant provides significantly greater improvements in knee pain and function compared to non-surgical care alone.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter RCT, subjects with persistent knee pain following one or more previous partial meniscectomies were randomized to receive either MMR or non-surgical care. This analysis evaluated the 1-year outcomes of this 2-year clinical trial. Patient-reported knee pain, function, and quality of life were measured using nine separate patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcomes were the pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the average of all five KOOS subscales (KOOS Overall). Treatment cessation was defined as permanent device removal in the MMR group and any surgical procedure to the index knee in the non-surgical care group.

RESULTS

Treated subjects had a median age of 52 years old (range 30-69 years) and one or more previous partial meniscectomies at a median of 34 months (range 5-430 months) before trial entry. Among 127 subjects treated with either MMR (n = 61) or non-surgical care (n = 66), 11 withdrew from the trial or were lost to follow-up (MMR, n = 0; non-surgical care, n = 11). The magnitude of improvement from baseline to 1 year was significantly greater in subjects who received MMR in both primary outcomes of KOOS Pain (P = 0.013) and KOOS Overall (P = 0.027). Treatment cessation was reported in 14.5% of non-surgical care subjects and only 4.9% of MMR subjects (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with the synthetic MMR implant resulted in significantly greater improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 1 year of follow-up compared to treatment with non-surgical care alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Placebo Surgery Controlled Trials: Do They Achieve What They Set Out To Do? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether placebo surgery controlled trials achieve what they set out to do by investigating discrepancy between projected and actual design aspects of trials identified through systematic review methods.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND

Interest in placebo surgery controlled trials is growing in response to concerns regarding unnecessary surgery and the societal cost of low-value healthcare. As questions about the justifiability of using placebo controls in surgery have been addressed, attention is now being paid to more practical concerns.

METHODS

Six databases were searched from inception - May 2020 (MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane Library). Placebo surgery controlled trials with a published protocol were included. Three authors extracted "projected" design aspects from protocols and "actual" design aspects from main findings papers. Absolute and relative difference between projected and actual design aspects were presented for each trial. Trials were grouped according to whether they met their target sample size ("completed") and were concluded in a timely fashion. Pairs of authors assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of 24 trials with data available to analyse; 3 were completed and concluded within target timeframe; 10 were completed and concluded outside the target timeline; 4 were completed without clear target timeframes; 2 were incomplete and concluded within the target framework; 5 were incomplete and concluded outside the target timeline. Trials which reached the recruitment target underestimated trial duration by 88% and number of recruitment sites by 87%.

CONCLUSIONS

Trialists need to factor additional time and sites into future placebo surgery controlled trials. A robust reporting framework of projected and actual trial design is imperative for trialists to learn from their predecessors.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42019133296).

Long-term National Trends of Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair and Debridement

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment of meniscal pathology continues to evolve in orthopaedic surgery, with a growing understanding of which patients benefit from which procedure and which patients might be best treated nonsurgically. In 2002, Moseley et al found no difference between arthroscopic procedures, including meniscal debridement and sham surgery, in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. This called into question the role of routine arthroscopic debridement in these patients. Additionally, an increased interest in understanding and maintaining the function of the meniscus has more recently resulted in a greater focus on meniscal preservation procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to evaluate the trends of arthroscopic meniscal debridement and repair and the characteristics of the patients receiving these treatments, compare the differences in practice between newly trained orthopaedic sports medicine specialists and those of other specialties, and analyze if there are differences in practice by region. It was hypothesized that the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) database would evaluate practice patterns of recent graduates as a surrogate for current treatment and training and, consequently, demonstrate a decreased rate of meniscal debridement.

METHODS

Data from ABOS Part II examinees from 2001 to 2017 were obtained from the ABOS Case List. Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes related to arthroscopic meniscal treatment were selected. The examination year, age of the patient, practice region, and examinee subspecialty were analyzed. Patient age was stratified into 4 groups: <30, 30 to 50, 51 to 65, and >65 years. Examinee subspecialty was stratified into sports medicine and non-sports medicine. Statistical regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Between 2001 and 2017, ABOS Part II examinees submitted 131,047 cases with CPT codes 29880 to 29883. Meniscal debridement volume decreased for all age groups during the study period, while repair increased. Sports medicine subspecialists were more likely than their counterparts to perform repair over debridement in patients aged younger than 30 years (P = .0004) and between 30 and 50 years (P = .0005).

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights into arthroscopic meniscal debridement and repair practice trends among ABOS Part II examinees. Meniscal debridement is decreasing and meniscal repair is increasing. Younger patient age and treatment by a sports medicine subspecialty examinee are associated with a higher likelihood of repair over debridement.

The effect of animated consent material on participants' willingness to enrol in a placebo-controlled surgical trial: a protocol for a randomised feasibility study

Background

Placebo-controlled surgical trials are recognised as the gold standard way to test the efficacy of a surgical procedure. Despite a rise in arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) surgeries for the treatment of shoulder pain, only two placebo-controlled surgical trials have been conducted. These trials encountered significant recruitment challenges, threatening the external validity of findings. Difficulties with recruitment are common in clinical trials and likely to be amplified in placebo-controlled surgical trials. This mixed method feasibility trial aims to address the following questions: (i) Feasibility: What proportion of patients who have consented to undergo ASD report that they would be willing to enrol in a placebo-controlled trial for this procedure? (ii) Optimisation: Can patients’ willingness to enrol in, or understanding of, such a trial be improved by supplementing written consent materials with a brief visual animation that outlines the details of the trial? And (iii) exploration: What factors influence patients stated willingness to enrol in such a trial, and how do they believe the recruitment process could be improved?

Methods

This study aims to recruit 80 patients on the waiting list for ASD. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either view a brief video animation explaining the hypothetical placebo-controlled trial in addition to written information or to written information only. Participants in both groups will be required to state if they would be willing to opt-in to the hypothetical ASD trial after immediately being presented with the consent material and again 1 week after completion of the consent process. Patients in both groups will also be required to complete a measure of trial literacy. Twenty participants will be purposively sampled to take part in an embedded qualitative study exploring understanding of trial concepts and factors contributing to willingness to opt-in.

Discussion

This feasibility study will provide evidence for optimising participant recruitment into a placebo-controlled trial of ASD by consenting patients using animated trial information in addition to written information. This pilot and feasibility data may also be relevant to placebo-controlled surgical trials more broadly, which are characterised by recruitment challenges.

Trial registration

ANZCTR, ACTRN12620001132932, date October 30, 2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-021-00782-7.

Sham Surgery Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery May Just Be a Sham: A Systematic Review of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To determine the limitations of randomized sham surgery-controlled trials in orthopaedic sports medicine and fidelity of the trials' conclusions.

METHODS

Randomized placebo surgery-controlled trials in orthopaedic sports medicine were included in this Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-guided systematic review. Several aspects of investigation design and conduct were analyzed: genetic analysis for propensity to placebo response, equipoise of informed consent process, geography of trial subjects, percentage of eligible subjects willing to be randomized, changes from protocol publication to results publication, and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

Seven sham surgery-controlled trials (845 subjects [370 knees, 449 shoulders, 26 elbows]; 5 from Europe, 1 from North America, and 1 from Australia; all superiority model, efficacy design) were analyzed. There were consistent methodologic deficiencies across studies. No studies reported genetic analysis of susceptibility to placebo response. Three studies (43%) were underpowered. Crossover rates ranged from 8% to 36%, which led to un-blinding in up to 100% of subjects. There were low enrollment rates of eligible subjects (up to 57% refused randomization). Follow-up was short term (2 years or less in all but one study). Complication rates ranged from 0% to 12.5%, with complications occurring in both groups (no significant difference between groups in any study).

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized sham-controlled studies in orthopaedic sports medicine have significant methodologic deficiencies that may invalidate their conclusions. Randomized trial design (with or without placebo control) may be optimized through the inclusion of per-protocol analysis, blinding index, equivalence or noninferiority trial design, and a nontreatment group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II Systematic Review of Level II studies.

Comparing Meniscectomy and Meniscal Repair: A Matched Cohort Analysis Utilizing a National Insurance Database

BACKGROUND

Meniscal repair leads to improved patient outcomes compared with meniscectomy in small case series.

PURPOSE

To compare the reoperation rates, 30-day complication rates, and cost differences between meniscectomy and meniscal repair in a large insurance database.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A national insurance database was queried for patients who underwent meniscectomy (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 29880 or 29881) or meniscal repair (CPT code 29882 or 29883) in the outpatient setting and who had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients without confirmed laterality and patients who underwent concomitant ligament reconstruction were excluded. Reoperation was defined by ipsilateral knee procedure after the index surgery. The 30-day postoperative complication rates were assessed using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The cost of the procedures per patient was calculated. Propensity score matching was utilized to create matched cohorts with similar characteristics. Statistical comparisons of cohort characteristics, reoperations, postoperative complications, and payments were made. All P values were reported with significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

A total of 27,580 patients (22,064 meniscectomy and 5516 meniscal repair; mean age, 29.9 ± 15.1 years; 41.2% female) were included in this study with a mean follow-up of 45.6 ± 21.0 months. The matched groups were similar with regard to characteristics and comorbidities. There were significantly more patients who required reoperation after index meniscectomy compared with meniscal repair postoperatively (5.3% vs 2.1%; P < .001). Patients undergoing meniscectomy were also significantly more likely to undergo any ipsilateral meniscal surgery (P < .001), meniscal transplantation (P = .005), or total knee arthroplasty (P = .001) postoperatively. There was a significantly higher overall 30-day complication rate after meniscal repair (1.2%) compared with meniscectomy (0.82%; P = .011). The total day-of-surgery payments was significantly higher in the repair group compared with the meniscectomy group ($7094 vs $5423; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Meniscal repair leads to significantly lower rates of reoperation and higher rates of early complications with a higher total cost compared with meniscectomy in a large database study.

Trends in the surgical treatment of meniscal tears in patients with and without concurrent anterior cruciate ligament tears

Objectives: Meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are common injuries. The purpose of this study was to determine trends in meniscal repair and meniscectomy both in the presence and absence of ACL reconstruction (ACLR).Methods: The PearlDiver database (www.pearldiverinc.com, Fort Wayne, IN) was queried for surgical management of patients who underwent arthroscopic meniscectomy (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] codes 29880, 29881), meniscus repair (29882, 29883), and ACLR (29888) from 2010 to 2015. Patient groups included meniscectomy alone, meniscus repair alone, meniscus repair followed by meniscectomy, ACLR with meniscus repair, and ACLR with meniscus repair followed by meniscectomy. Linear regression was performed to determine the significance of yearly trend across each procedure. Statistical analysis was performed with RStudio, Version 1.1.442 (RStudio Inc. Boston, MA) for α value of .05.Results: The incidence of isolated meniscectomies decreased from 32.5/10,000 to 28.3/10,000 across the study period (p = 0.0230), whereas the incidence of isolated meniscus repairs and all meniscus repairs remained unchanged (p = 0.3000, p = 0.1260). For patients undergoing concomitant meniscal repair and ACLR, the highest proportion of patients was in the age range 15-24 years old with 45.7% of patients being 15-19. Of the ACLR, 18.6% involved a concomitant meniscus repair, and 54.0% involved a concomitant meniscectomy. The risk of subsequent meniscectomy was less in patients undergoing meniscal repair with ACLR than in patients undergoing isolated meniscal repair (10.8% versus 12.4%; aOR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.95, p = 0.0226).Conclusions: The highest rates of concurrent meniscal repair with ACLR are in the 15-24-year-old population. From 2010 to 2015, the rate of meniscectomy declined while that of isolated meniscal repairs, as well as meniscal repair with ACLR, remained stable. Patients undergoing meniscal repair with ACLR had lower rates of subsequent meniscectomy compared to patients undergoing isolated meniscal repair in the absence of ACL tear.Level of evidence: Level III.

Arthroscopic meniscectomy versus non-surgical or sham treatment in patients with MRI confirmed degenerative meniscus lesions: a protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) after degenerative meniscus tears is one of the most frequently performed surgeries in orthopaedics. Although several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published that showed no clear benefit compared with sham treatment or non-surgical treatment, the incidence of APM remains high. The common perception by most orthopaedic surgeons is that there are subgroups of patients that do need APM to improve, and they argue that each study sample of the existing trials is not representative for the day-to-day patients in the clinic. Therefore, the objective of this individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is to assess whether there are subgroups of patients with degenerative meniscus lesions who benefit from APM in comparison with non-surgical or sham treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An existing systematic review will be updated to identify all RCTs worldwide that evaluated APM compared with sham treatment or non-surgical treatment in patients with knee symptoms and degenerative meniscus tears. Time and effort will be spent in contacting principal investigators of the original trials and encourage them to collaborate in this project by sharing their trial data. All individual participant data will be validated for missing data, internal data consistency, randomisation integrity and censoring patterns. After validation, all datasets will be combined and analysed using a one-staged and two-staged approach. The RCTs' characteristics will be used for the assessment of clinical homogeneity and generalisability of the findings. The most important outcome will be the difference between APM and control groups in knee pain, function and quality of life 2 years after the intervention. Other outcomes of interest will include the difference in adverse events and mental health.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All trial data will be anonymised before it is shared with the authors. The data will be encrypted and stored on a secure server located in the Netherlands. No major ethical concerns remain. This IPDMA will provide the evidence base to update and tailor diagnostic and treatment protocols as well as (international) guidelines for patients for whom orthopaedic surgeons consider APM. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017067240.

How do people feel about the possibility that a treatment might not outperform simulated and inert treatments?

BACKGROUND

Many treatments in common use are not proved better than simulated or inert treatments. While some clinicians express little concern about whether a particular treatment has a direct effect on the pathophysiology believed to be causing symptoms, we wonder if patients would agree.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Are there factors independently associated with the affirmation that it is OK if a treatment is proved not to outperform simulated or inert treatment (a placebo) measured on an 11-point ordinal scale, including the risk and invasiveness of the treatment? And, are there factors independently associated with the affirmation that the clinician should inform a patient about the degree to which a given treatment is known to outperform simulated or inert treatments?

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We asked 763 English-speaking people their willingness to accept unproved treatment, depending on variations in risk, and invasiveness and their opinion regarding the importance of clinicians informing them whether a given treatment is proved to outperform simulated and inert (placebo) treatment.

RESULTS

Acceptance of the unproved treatment was quite low, more so with greater risk and invasiveness. Lower acceptance of unproved treatment was associated with older age, more education, and unemployment. People rated it quite important (mean 7.3 out of 10) that clinicians inform patients if treatments are no better than placebo, no matter the risk of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

People want to be informed if a treatment is not proved to outperform nonspecific effects such as the placebo effect.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Not applicable.

Knee Arthroscopic Surgery in Middle-Aged Patients With Meniscal Symptoms: A 5-Year Follow-up of a Prospective, Randomized Study

Background:

Arthroscopic meniscal surgery is a common orthopaedic procedure in middle-aged patients, but the efficacy of this procedure has been questioned. In this study, we followed up the only randomized controlled trial that has shown a 1-year benefit from knee arthroscopic surgery with an exercise program compared with an exercise program alone.

Purpose:

To (1) evaluate whether knee arthroscopic surgery combined with an exercise program provided an additional 5-year benefit compared with an exercise program alone in middle-aged patients with meniscal symptoms, (2) determine whether baseline mechanical symptoms affected the outcome, and (3) compare radiographic changes between treatment groups.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods:

Of 179 eligible patients aged 45 to 64 years, 150 were randomized to either a 3-month exercise program (nonsurgery group) or to the same exercise program plus knee arthroscopic surgery (surgery group) within 4 weeks. Radiographs were assessed, according to the Kellgren-Lawrence grade, at baseline and at the 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–Pain (KOOS_PAIN) subscore from baseline to the 5-year follow-up. We performed an as-treated analysis.

Results:

A total of 102 patients completed the 5-year questionnaire. At the 5-year follow-up, both groups had significant improvement in KOOS_PAIN subscores, although there was no significant change from the 3-year scores. There was no between-group difference in the change in the KOOS_PAIN subscore from baseline to 5 years (3.2 points [95% CI, –6.1 to 12.4]; adjusted P = .403). In the surgery group, improvement was greater in patients without mechanical symptoms than in those with mechanical symptoms (mean difference, 18.4 points [95% CI, 8.7 to 28.1]; P < .001). Radiographic deterioration occurred in 60% of patients in the surgery group and 37% of those in the nonsurgery group (P = .060).

Conclusion:

Knee arthroscopic surgery combined with an exercise program provided no additional long-term benefit after 5 years compared with the exercise program alone in middle-aged patients with meniscal symptoms. Surgical outcomes were better in patients without mechanical symptoms than in patients with mechanical symptoms during the preoperative period. Radiographic changes did not differ between treatment groups.

Registration:

NCT01288768 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

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.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for meniscal tears of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in adults with a meniscal tear and knee pain in three defined populations (taking account of the comparison intervention): (A) all patients (any type of meniscal tear with or without radiographic osteoarthritis); (B) patients with any type of meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee; and (C) patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATASOURCES

A search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN was performed, unlimited by language or publication date (inception to 18 October 2018).

ELIGIBILITYCRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials performed in adults with meniscal tears, comparing APM versus (1) non-surgical intervention; (2) pharmacological intervention; (3) surgical intervention; and (4) no intervention.

RESULTS

Ten trials were identified: seven compared with non-surgery, one pharmacological and two surgical. Findings were limited by small sample size, small number of trials and cross-over of participants to APM from comparator interventions. In group A (all patients) receiving APM versus non-surgical intervention (physiotherapy), at 6-12 months, there was a small mean improvement in knee pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.22 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.40]; five trials, 943 patients; I² 48%; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]: low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.43 [95% CI 0.10 to 0.75]; three trials, 350 patients; I² 56%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.18 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.33]; six trials, 1050 patients; I² 27%; GRADE: low). When the analysis was restricted to people without osteoarthritis (group B), there was a small to moderate improvement in knee pain (SMD 0.35 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.66]; three trials, 402 patients; I² 58%; GRADE: very low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.59 [95% CI 0.11 to 1.07]; two trials, 244 patients; I² 71%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.30 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.53]; four trials, 507 patients; I² 44%; GRADE: very low). There was no improvement in knee pain, function or quality of life in patients receiving APM compared with placebo surgery at 6-12 months in group A or B (pain: SMD 0.08 [95% CI -0.24 to 0.41]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: low; function: SMD -0.08 [95% CI -0.41 to 0.24]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: high; quality of life: SMD 0.05 [95% CI -0.27 to 0.38]; one trial; 146 patients; GRADE: high). No trials were identified for people in group C.

CONCLUSION

Performing APM in all patients with knee pain and a meniscal tear is not appropriate, and surgical treatment should not be considered the first-line intervention. There may, however, be a small-to-moderate benefit from APM compared with physiotherapy for patients without osteoarthritis. No trial has been limited to patients failing non-operative treatment or patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-arthritic joint; research is needed to establish the value of APM in this population.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42017056844.

Editorial Commentary: Scoping Knees With Osteoarthritis and Opioid Dependence? Brace Yourself for Postop Pain

Recent data suggest there are 2 factors associated with prolonged opioid use following arthroscopic meniscus surgery: opioid use prior to surgery and the presence of osteoarthritis. With heightened awareness and large-scale efforts to reduce perioperative opioid use, cessation prior to surgical interventions should be given strong consideration because this may result in meaningful reductions in postoperative prescriptions. In addition, counseling patients about opioid-induced hyperalgesia (where opioid medications can make pain worse and not better) in the preoperative period could be used in this population. A multimodal approach to pain control after surgery should be standardized. Finally, we must maximize nonsurgical care in patients with mild osteoarthritis and meniscus tears. Perhaps the quickest way to have a meaningful reduction in postoperative opioid use? Stop scoping knees with osteoarthritis!