Outcomes, Complications, and Reoperations After Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

Correlation between articular cartilage status on outcomes and survivorship following meniscal allograft transplantation: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review evaluating potential correlations between preoperative articular cartilage integrity on outcomes and survivorship in patients undergoing meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT).

METHODS

A literature search was performed by querying SCOPUS, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials from database inception through May 2023 according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. Inclusion criteria were limited to studies reporting on outcomes and survivorship following MAT based on preoperative cartilage status.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies, consisting of 1723 patients (n = 1758 total menisci), were identified in six level III and 10 level IV evidence studies. There was high heterogeneity in cartilage grading scales, reporting of concomitant cartilage procedures, and indications for MAT based on osteoarthritis. Patients with lower limb malalignment were either excluded or corrected with an osteotomy. MAT failure rate was reported in nine studies, with four studies reporting a greater rate of failure in knees with higher degrees of cartilage damage. Eight studies reported on clinical outcomes based on cartilage grade, with two studies reporting significant differences in clinical outcomes based on cartilage grade. Of the five studies reporting management of full-thickness chondral defects with cartilage surgery, three studies reported no significant difference in survivorship based on preoperative cartilage grade, while one study reported lower survivorship and one study reported unclear results. No studies found significant differences in survivorship and outcomes between medial and lateral MAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Conflicting results and high variability in reporting of concomitant cartilage repair and indications for MAT exist in studies evaluating the efficacy of MAT based on articular cartilage status. The degree of preoperative chondral damage did not have a strong relationship with clinical outcomes following MAT. Higher degrees of cartilage damage were associated with higher MAT failure rates, with possible improvement in survivorship when treated with an appropriate cartilage procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Meniscal allograft transplantation improves patient-reported outcomes in both minimal and moderate knee osteoarthritis at 1 and 2 years postoperatively

PURPOSE

Severe cartilage damage and advanced knee osteoarthritis (OA) might be associated with poor outcomes of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). The purpose of this prospective follow-up study was to explore MAT survivorship and patient satisfaction among young patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency and radiological OA of different Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grades.

METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive MAT patients were prospectively followed up for 2 years. The lateral meniscus was replaced in 29 patients and the medial meniscus in 6 patients. Outcomes were assessed using the KOOS4 composite score, KOOS subscales, Lysholm knee score, and OA K-L grade progression from weight-bearing knee radiographs. For the outcome analysis, patients were categorized into two groups: 19 in Group A (K-L classification 0-1) and 16 in Group B (K-L classification 2).

RESULTS

In terms of KOOS4 and Lysholm scores, the patients showed a clinically significant improvement from baseline to the 1-year follow-up (22.2 points, 95% CI 16.6-27.8 for KOOS4 and 16.8 points, 95% CI 8.9-24.6 for Lysholm), and the improvement remained at 2 years (20.6 points, 95% CI 13.2-28.1 for KOOS4 and 21.5, 95% CI 12.5-30.7 for Lysholm). At the 6-month follow-up, this improvement was not yet observed. Minor between-group differences were observed in the KOOS4 and Lysholm scores for the K-L 0-1 and K-L 2 OA groups, but the estimates were imprecise with wide confidence intervals. A clinically relevant difference between these two study groups could not be found at any timepoint. The reoperation rate was higher in the K-L 2 group than in the K-L 0-1 group (31% vs. 11%).

CONCLUSIONS

MAT yielded improved patient-reported outcomes and subjective satisfaction at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. The differences from baseline exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at all timepoints. The severity of cartilage damage and knee OA in terms of the K-L grade at the time of surgery did not affect the KOOS and Lysholm scores after the MAT procedure. Knee OA progression in terms of K-L grade worsening was not observed in any patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Tear patterns and locations are different between lateral and medial compartments in patients with early anatomical failure after meniscal allograft transplantation

PURPOSE

To investigate the characteristics of anatomically failed grafts within 1 year after meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and compare the differences between lateral and medial MATs.

METHODS

The records of consecutive patients with anatomically failed grafts within 1 year after primary MAT between 2005 and 2018 were reviewed. Anatomical failure was defined as a tear covering > 50% of the allograft or an unstable peripheral rim. The pattern and location of the graft tears were analyzed using magnetic resonance imaging or arthroscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients were included. All 21 patients had anatomical failure with tears involving > 50% of the allograft, whereas 15 had an unstable peripheral rim of the allograft. The mean failure time was 6.6 ± 3.6 months in all patients (lateral MAT, n = 15; medial MAT, n = 6). In the lateral MAT group, meniscocapsular separation was the most common pattern (n = 10, 66.7%), followed by complex (n = 3, 20.0%), radial (n = 1, 6.7%), and longitudinal (n = 1, 6.7%) tear. In the medial MAT group, a root tear was the most common pattern (n = 5, 83.3%), followed by a complex tear (n = 1, 16.7%). Meanwhile, in the lateral MAT, the midbody was the most frequently affected location (n = 9, 60.0%), followed by the posterior (n = 5, 33.3%) and anterior (n = 1, 6.7%) areas; in the medial MAT group, the posterior (n = 5, 83.3%) was the most frequently affected location, followed by the anterior area (n = 1, 16.7%). Significant differences in the pattern (P = 0.002) and location (P = 0.043) of the graft tears were found between lateral and medial MATs.

CONCLUSION

In patients with early failure after MAT, meniscocapsular separation in the midbody of the lateral compartment and root tears in the posterior area of the medial compartment were the most common. Thus, surgeons are encouraged to pay extra attention to these vulnerable areas during the early period after MAT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Bone bridge technique for lateral meniscal allograft transplantation: no difference in clinical outcome compared to the soft tissue technique

PURPOSE

There is considerable debate regarding the optimal method of fixation for lateral meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT), with bone bridge techniques technically harder but allowing maintenance of root attachments, while soft tissue techniques are potentially more challenging for healing. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of the bone bridge and soft tissue techniques for lateral MAT in terms of failure, re-operation rate, complications and patient reported outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for patients undergoing primary lateral MAT with a minimum of 12-month follow-up. Patients following surgery utilising the bone bridge technique (BB) were compared with historical control patients who underwent MAT with the soft tissue technique (ST). Outcome was assessed by failure rate, defined as removal or revision of the meniscus transplant, survivorship by Kaplan-Meir analysis, re-operation rates, and other adverse event. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared using data at the 2-year point or 1 year if not reached 2 years.

RESULTS

One-hundred and twelve patients following lateral meniscal transplants were included, 31 in the BB group and 81 in the ST historical control group, with no differences in demographics between both groups. Median follow-up for the BB group was 18 (12-43) months compared to 46 (15-62) months for the ST group. There were 3 failures (9.6%) in the BB group v 2 (2.4%) in the ST group (n.s.) with a mean time to failure of 9 months in both groups. 9 patients (29%) required a re-operation (all cause) in the BB group v 24 patients (29.6%) in the ST group (n.s). There was no difference in complications between both groups. There was significant improvement (p < 0.0001) in all PROMs (Tegner, IKDC, KOOS and Lysholm) between baseline and 2-year follow-up for both groups but no between-group differences.

CONCLUSION

Lateral MAT has a high success rate for symptomatic meniscal deficiency with significant benefits irrespective of the fixation technique. There is no advantage in performing the more technically demanding BB technique over ST fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

Good clinical outcomes can be expected after meniscal allograft transplantation at 15 years of follow-up

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate graft survivorship and report the functional and radiographic results of Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) throughout a minimum 15-year follow-up period.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients that had undergone an isolated MAT procedure during the period studied were included. The results were assessed with the Lysholm and Tegner scores as well as the Visual Analog Scale. Magnetic resonance imaging and a complete radiographic series were carried out to determine the degree of meniscal extrusion and joint space narrowing. A comparison was made between the radiological findings of the last follow-up, the 5-year mid-term follow-up and those from the preoperative period.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were available for the final follow-up. The mean follow-up was 17.4 years. There were 23 (60.5%) medial menisci and 15 lateral menisci (39.4%). Meniscal extrusion increased from the 29.7% ± 14.9 obtained at the 5-year follow-up to the 72.5% ± 22.5 seen at the end of the follow-up (p = 0.0001). The joint space distance was almost unchanged from the initial evaluation (3.3 ± 1.5 mm) to the 5-year follow-up measurement (3.1 ± 1.7 mm, n.s.). However, it did decrease at the last follow-up (1.9 ± 1.5 mm, p < 0.05). The functional outcomes improved from the preoperative period to the mid-term follow-up and later worsened at the final follow-up. The mean preoperative Lysholm score at the initial follow-up was 61.5 ± 9.6, 86.9 ± 10.9 for the 5-year evaluation and stood at 77.4 ± 11.5 (p = 0.0001) at the final follow-up. Regarding the Tegner score, those pre-operative scores were compared to the ones at the last follow-up (median: 3; range 0-6 vs. 5.5; 3-6, respectively; p = 0.0001). The VAS went down from 6.6 ± 1.7 at the initial evaluation to 2.5 ± 1.9 at the final follow-up (p = 0.0001). The joint-space width remained unchanged from the initial evaluation (3.35 ± 1.5 mm) up to the 5-year follow-up measurement (3.1 ± 1.7 mm, n.s.). However, this joint-space distance had decreased by the last evaluation in the long-term follow-up (1.9 ± 1.4 mm, p < 0.05). Five patients (13.1%) presented with a MAT failure at 5 years, which was followed by extirpation of the meniscal graft. At the final follow-up, a total of 16 patients (42.1%) presented with a failure. At that time, there were 4 more MAT removals and seven patients that required a total knee replacement. The mean time to failure of the meniscal graft was 206.2 months ± 13.4 (18.0 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Meniscal allograft transplantation produces good functional results at a minimum 15-year follow-up. However, degenerative arthritis in the affected compartment progressed during that period.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

MRI follow up of bilateral partial meniscal substitution with a demineralized bone block. A case report

The case of a 60-year-old male is described, who presented in 2020 with a symptomatic degenerative bilateral posterior horn lesion of the medial meniscus. On MRI both lesions appeared identical as 60%-70% incomplete radial tears in the posterior horn of the medial meniscus with a flap tear component. The patient was arthroscopically treated with bilateral implantation of a demineralized bone block as a partial medial meniscus substitute. A complete isointense and homogenous signal was recorded after 16 weeks and 12 months on the right knee and after 12 weeks on the left knee, indicating a complete ingrowth and remodeling of the implant. KOOS and IKDC score improved from 81 and 66% presurgery to 94 and 93%, respectively, 6 months after the second partial medial meniscus substitution on the left knee.

A novel methodology to integrate outcomes regarding perioperative pain experience into a composite score: prediction model development and validation

BACKGROUND

An integrated score that globally assesses perioperative pain experience and rationally weights each component has not yet been developed.

METHODS

A development dataset specific to adult Chinese patients undergoing orthopedic surgery was obtained from PAIN OUT (1985 qualified patients of 2244). A more recent validation dataset obeying the same conditions was obtained from the Chinese Anesthesia Shared-database Platform (1004 qualified patients of 1032). Outcomes were assessed using the International Pain Outcomes Questionnaire (IPO-Q), which comprises key patient-level outcomes of perioperative pain management, including pain experience and perceptions of care. Using principal component analysis and regression models, a composite score was inferred to integrate pain experience. The discrimination of the composite score for dissatisfaction and desire for more pain treatment was compared with that of the worst pain score.

RESULTS

A composite score was developed from the 12 items of the IPO-Q regarding pain experience. The weight for calculating the composite score was worst pain 11, least pain 17, time spent in severe pain 11, interference with activity in bed 9, interference with breathing deeply or coughing 10, interference with sleep 9, anxiety 12, helplessness 12, nausea 0, drowsiness 2, itch 5, and dizziness 2. In external validation, the composite score indicated superior discrimination to the worst pain in predicting dissatisfaction (P<0.001) and desire for more pain treatment (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study introduced a methodology to integrate outcomes regarding perioperative pain experience into a composite score, which was based on the weight of each item.