-
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology,... Sep 2023To evaluate the overall evidence of published health-economic evaluation studies on meniscus tear treatment. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the overall evidence of published health-economic evaluation studies on meniscus tear treatment.
METHODS
Our systematic review focuses on health-economic evaluation studies of meniscus tear treatment interventions found in PubMed and Embase databases. A qualitative, descriptive approach was used to analyze the studies' results and systematically report them following PRISMA guidelines. The health-economic evaluation method for each included study was categorized following one of the four approaches: partial economic evaluation (PEE), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Comparisons of input variables and outcomes were made, if applicable.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included; of these, six studies performed PEE, seven studies CUA, two studies CEA, and one study combined CBA, CUA, and CEA. The following economic comparisons were analyzed and showed the respective comparative outcomes: (1) meniscus repair was more cost-effective than arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (meniscectomy) for reparable meniscus tear; (2) non-operative treatment or physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy for degenerative meniscus tear; (3) physical therapy with delayed meniscectomy was more cost-effective than early meniscectomy for meniscus tear with knee osteoarthritis; (4) meniscectomy without physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy with physical therapy; (5) meniscectomy was more cost-effective than either meniscus allograft transplantation or meniscus scaffold procedure; (6) the conventional arthroscopic instrument cost was lower than laser-assisted arthroscopy in meniscectomy procedures.
CONCLUSION
Results from this review suggest that meniscus repair is the most cost-effective intervention for reparable meniscus tears. Physical therapy followed by delayed meniscectomy is the most cost-effective intervention for degenerative meniscus tears. Meniscus scaffold should be avoided, especially when implemented on a large scale.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic review of level IV studies.
Topics: Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Meniscectomy; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Meniscus; Arthroscopy; Menisci, Tibial
PubMed: 36637478
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-022-07278-8 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Jun 2017Current postoperative rehabilitation protocols after isolated meniscal repair vary widely. No consensus exists with regard to the optimal amount of weightbearing, range...
BACKGROUND
Current postoperative rehabilitation protocols after isolated meniscal repair vary widely. No consensus exists with regard to the optimal amount of weightbearing, range of motion, or speed at which the patient progresses through the rehabilitation phases. Confounding factors including concomitant ligamentous or cartilaginous injuries have made studying isolated meniscal tears problematic.
PURPOSE
To systematically review and evaluate the influence of range of motion and weightbearing status during the postoperative rehabilitation period after isolated meniscal repair on clinical efficacy and outcome scores.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
A search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. The selection criteria for inclusion were English-language in vivo clinical studies reporting on isolated meniscal repairs utilizing an arthroscopically assisted technique that outlined the postoperative rehabilitation protocol and included at least a 2-year follow-up. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed, and data concerning patient demographics, tear type, repair technique, postoperative protocol details, clinical failures, and outcome scores were extracted from the eligible studies. Rehabilitation protocols were divided into "accelerated," "motion restricted," "weight restricted," and "dual restricted" according to the limitations placed on the treatment groups.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies, containing 17 different treatment groups, met the inclusion criteria. The 2 accelerated groups, 2 motion-restricted groups, 4 weight-restricted groups, and 9 dual-restricted groups showed similar efficacy in terms of clinical success and postoperative outcome scores. Early range of motion and weightbearing status showed no influence over clinical outcomes. Of the 17 groups, 13 reported a greater than 70% clinical success rate with significant variation in the tear type, fixation technique, and postoperative restrictions.
CONCLUSION
Early range of motion and immediate postoperative weightbearing appear to have no detrimental effect on the chances for clinical success after isolated meniscal repair. Significant variation exists between postoperative protocols, with no current consensus on the ideal parameters for weightbearing and range of motion. Studies reporting outcomes regarding isolated meniscal repair are limited. Future research should include determining the ideal combination of weightbearing and range of motion for specific tear types.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Clinical Protocols; Humans; Menisci, Tibial; Range of Motion, Articular; Tibial Meniscus Injuries; Weight-Bearing; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28256906
DOI: 10.1177/0363546516667578 -
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology,... Jun 2023This study aimed to evaluate and compare the time required to return to sports (RTS) after surgery, the rate of revision surgery and the time required for RTS after... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the time required to return to sports (RTS) after surgery, the rate of revision surgery and the time required for RTS after revision surgery in elite athletes undergoing meniscal repair or partial meniscectomy, particularly analysing the difference between medial and lateral menisci. It was hypothesised that both procedures would entail similar, high rates of RTS, with the lateral meniscus exhibiting higher potential healing postprocedure compared to the medial meniscus.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment of the systematic review was performed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The following search terms were browsed in the title, abstract and keyword fields: 'meniscus' or 'meniscal' AND 'tear,' 'injury' or 'lesion' AND 'professional,' 'elite' or 'high-level' AND 'athletes,' 'sports,' 'sportsman,' 'soccer,' 'basketball,' 'football' or 'handball'. The resulting measures extracted from the studies were the rate of RTS, level of RTS, complications, revision surgery and subsequent RTS, Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).
RESULTS
In this study, the cohort consisted of 421 patients [415 (98.6%) men and 6 (1.4%) women] with a mean age of 23.0 ± 3.0 years. All patients were elite athletes in wrestling, baseball, soccer, rugby or handball. While 327 (77.7%) patients received partial meniscectomy at a mean age of 23.3 ± 2.6 years, 94 (22.3%) patients received meniscal repair at a mean age of 22.1 ± 4.0 years. After partial meniscectomy, 277 patients (84.7%) returned to their competitive sports activity and 256 (78.3%) returned to their pre-injury activity levels. A total of 12 (3.7%) patients required revision surgery because of persistent pain [5 (1.5%) patients], chondrolysis [2 (0.7%) patients] or both chondrolysis and lateral instability [5 (1.5%) patients]. Ten (83.3%) of the twelve patients had involvement of the lateral meniscus, whereas the location of injury was not specified in the remaining two patients. After revision surgery, all patients (100%) resumed sports activity. However, after meniscal repair, 80 (85.1%) athletes returned to their competitive sports activity and 71 (75.5%) returned to their pre-injury activity levels. A total of 16 (17.0%) patients required partial meniscectomy in cases of persistent pain or suture failure. Of these, 4 (25%) patients involved lateral and medial menisci each and 8 (50%) patients were not specified. After revision surgery, more than 80.0% of the patients (13) resumed sports activity.
CONCLUSIONS
In elite athletes with isolated meniscal injury, partial meniscectomy and meniscal suture exhibited similar rates of RTS and return to pre-injury levels. Nonetheless, athletes required more time for RTS after meniscal repair and exhibited an increased rate of revision surgery associated with a reduced rate of RTS after the subsequent surgery. For lateral meniscus tears, meniscectomy was associated with a high rate of revision surgery and risk of chondrolysis, whereas partial medial meniscectomy allowed for rapid RTS but with the potential risk of developing knee osteoarthritis over the years. The findings of this systematic review suggested a suture on the lateral meniscus in elite athletes because of the high healing potential after the procedure, the reduced risk of developing chondrolysis and the high risk of revision surgery after partial meniscectomy. Furthermore, it is important to evaluate several factors while dealing with the medial meniscus. If rapid RTS activity is needed, a hyperselective meniscectomy is recommended; otherwise, a meniscal suture is recommended to avoid accelerated osteoarthritis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO-CRD42022351979 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=351979 ).
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Young Adult; Adult; Adolescent; Menisci, Tibial; Meniscectomy; Knee Joint; Soccer; Cartilage Diseases; Athletes; Retrospective Studies; Arthroscopy
PubMed: 36319751
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-022-07208-8 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... Mar 2023To systematically summarize the medial meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) reported outcomes and evaluate whether the surgical technique is associated with... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically summarize the medial meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) reported outcomes and evaluate whether the surgical technique is associated with allograft extrusion and knee function.
METHODS
Systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were English-language clinical studies involving arthroscopically assisted medial MAT that reported the surgical technique and the presence of graft extrusion or functional outcomes after surgery. Studies in which outcomes for medial MAT could not be separated from lateral MAT were excluded. Surgical technique, allograft-related characteristics, and clinical outcomes were extracted.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies with 328 medial MAT were included, 58.3% studies qualified as level 4 of evidence, 29.2% as level 3, and 12.5% as level 2. Allograft fixation techniques were bone plug (235/328 [71.6%]), bone bridge/trough (55/328 [16.8%]), and soft-tissue suture fixation only (38/328 [11.6%]). Relative percentage of extrusion after surgery ranged from 24.8% to 53.7%. Major extrusion (>3 mm) ranged from zero to 78%. Overall, functional scores improved after medial MAT. None of surgical techniques were associated with poor functional outcomes or extruded meniscus; however, nonanatomical placement of the anterior and posterior horns appeared to increase meniscus extrusion.
CONCLUSION
Medial MAT provides favorable outcomes, with acceptable rates of complication and failure regardless of surgical technique. Although allograft extrusion appears equivalent for both bone plug and soft-tissue fixation techniques, positioning allograft horns at the native meniscal footprint may be critical for preventing extrusion. However, the heterogeneity and low level of evidence of the studies included in this review prevent decisive conclusions regarding optimal MAT fixation techniques, clinical significance of allograft extrusion, or comparative clinical outcomes after medial MAT.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV - systematic review of Level II to IV studies.
Topics: Humans; Menisci, Tibial; Follow-Up Studies; Transplantation, Homologous; Allografts; Patient Reported Outcome Measures
PubMed: 36543661
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.11.033 -
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Jul 2020Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear and meniscal injury often co-occur. The protective effect of early ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on meniscal injury and its repair is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear and meniscal injury often co-occur. The protective effect of early ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on meniscal injury and its repair is not clear. Critical literature review can support or change clinical strategies and identify gaps in the available evidence.
PURPOSE
To assess the protective effect of ACLR on the meniscus and provide clinical guidelines for managing ACL tears and subsequent meniscal injury. We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) Does ACLR protect the meniscus from subsequent injury? (2) Does early ACLR reduce secondary meniscal injury compared with delayed ACLR? (3) Does ACLR protect the repaired meniscus?
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed through use of MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Search terms included , , and . Studies describing primary ACLR and nonoperative treatment in adult patients were included, as well as studies indicating timing of ACLR. The included articles were assessed individually for risk of bias through use of the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias and MINORS (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) tools.
RESULTS
One level 2 randomized controlled trial and several level 3 and 4 studies indicated a protective effect of ACLR on meniscal injury compared with nonoperative treatment. There was weak (level 3) evidence of the protective effect of early ACLR on the meniscus. Meniscal repair failure was less frequent in patients with ACL reconstruction than in patients with ACL deficiency (level 4).
CONCLUSION
The evidence collected in this review suggests a protective effect of ACLR for subsequent meniscal injury (level 2 evidence). ACLR should be performed within 3 months of injury (level 3 evidence). Meniscal injury requiring surgical repair in the ACL-deficient knee should be treated with repair accompanied by ACLR (level 3 evidence). The paucity of level 2 studies prevents the formation of guidelines based on level 1 evidence. There is a strong clinical need for randomized or prospective trials to provide guidelines on timing of ACLR and meniscal repair.
PubMed: 32782901
DOI: 10.1177/2325967120933895 -
International Orthopaedics Jul 2022The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine the outcomes and failure rates for revision meniscus repairs in patients with re-tears after primary repair failure. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine the outcomes and failure rates for revision meniscus repairs in patients with re-tears after primary repair failure.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Embase with the terms "Meniscus," "Meniscal," "Revised," and "Revision." The search strategy was based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) protocol and included four articles (79 patients). The search criteria were limited to studies reporting outcomes and failure rates. The exclusion criteria included languages other than English, biomechanical studies, letters to editors, non-full text, review articles, meta-analysis, and case reports.
RESULTS
Four comparative studies with 79 patients (53 males, 26 females) with a mean age of 23.9 ± 6.4 years treated with a revision meniscus repair were included in the final analysis. Within this analysis, we found a failure rate of 25.3% (20 of 79 patients). Of these failed repairs, 30.95% (13 of 42) were of the medial meniscus, and 18.9% (7 of 37) were of the lateral meniscus. In the four articles, the postoperative Tegner sports activity score was found to be 6.1 ± 1.6 (range, 2 to 10). The post-operative Lysholm score was reported in three articles (45 patients). At a mean follow-up of 58.3 ± 23.9 months, the mean post-operative Lysholm score was 89.1 ± 7.6 (range, 38 to 100). The Coleman score for the included articles ranged between 52 and 59.
CONCLUSION
This analysis found that revision meniscus repairs in patients with re-tears after primary repair failure result in clinical outcomes similar to that of primary repairs.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Arthroscopy; Female; Humans; Lysholm Knee Score; Male; Menisci, Tibial; Retrospective Studies; Tibial Meniscus Injuries; Young Adult
PubMed: 35477793
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05413-1 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Mar 2024Medial meniscus posterior root (MMPR) tears are recognized as a substantial cause of disability and morbidity. However, meniscus root repair, regardless of technique, is...
BACKGROUND
Medial meniscus posterior root (MMPR) tears are recognized as a substantial cause of disability and morbidity. However, meniscus root repair, regardless of technique, is not without potential complications.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the reported incidence of complications and adverse events after isolated MMPR repair.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using Embase, PubMed, and Scopus databases with the following search terms combined with Boolean operators: "meniscus,""root," and "repair." Inclusion criteria consisted of level 1 to 4 human clinical studies in English or English-language translation reporting complications and adverse events after isolated posterior medial meniscus root repairs. The overall incidence of specific complications was estimated from the pooled sample of the included studies.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with a total pooled sample of 442 patients were identified. The mean patient age was 58.1 years, while the mean final follow-up time was 37.2 months (range, 12-84.8 months). The overall incidence of complications was 9.7% (n = 43/442), with the most commonly reported complication being progressive degenerative changes within the knee (10.4%; n = 25/240; n = 5 studies). A total of 1.25% (n = 3/240) of patients who experienced degenerative changes required conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Repair failures were reported in 3.1% (n = 10/327; n = 8 studies) of patients.
CONCLUSION
Repairing MMPR tears is critical in preventing accelerated progression of knee osteoarthritis in patients without significant knee osteoarthritis preoperatively. While this repair is still recommended and necessary in appropriate patients, this review found that the incidence of complications after isolated posterior medial meniscus root repair was 9.7%, primarily involving the presence of progressive degeneration, while repair failure was reported in 3% of patients.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Child, Preschool; Child; Menisci, Tibial; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Knee Injuries; Tibial Meniscus Injuries; Knee Joint; Meniscus; Retrospective Studies; Arthroscopy
PubMed: 37129097
DOI: 10.1177/03635465231157758 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Sep 2023To preserve the meniscus's function, repairing the torn meniscus has become a common understanding. After which, the search for the ideal suture material is continuous.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To preserve the meniscus's function, repairing the torn meniscus has become a common understanding. After which, the search for the ideal suture material is continuous. However, it is still controversial about the efficacy of suture absorbability on meniscus healing.
METHODS
This review is designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
(1) Studies on meniscus repair; (2) Second-look arthroscopy was performed; (3) The meniscus was repaired by absorbable and non-absorbable sutures; (4) The healing condition of repaired meniscus via second-look arthroscopy was described.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
(1) Animal studies, cadaveric studies, or in vitro research; (2) Meniscus transplantation; (3) Open meniscus repair; (4) Reviews, meta-analysis, case reports, letters, and comments; (5) non-English studies. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database were searched up to October 2022. Risk of bias and methodology quality of included literature were assessed according to ROBINS-I and the modified Coleman Methodological Scale (MCMS). Descriptive analysis was performed, and meta-analysis was completed by RevMan5.4.1.
RESULTS
Four studies were included in the systematic review. Among them, three studies were brought into the meta-analysis, including 1 cohort study and 2 case series studies about 130 patients with meniscal tears combined with anterior cruciate ligament injury. Forty-two cases were repaired by absorbable sutures, and 88 were repaired by non-absorbable sutures. Using the fixed effect model, there was a statistical difference in the healing success rate between the absorbable and the non-absorbable groups [RR1.20, 95%CI (1.03, 1.40)].
CONCLUSION
In early and limited studies, insufficient evidence supports that non-absorbable sutures in meniscus repair surgery could improve meniscal healing success rate under second-look arthroscopy compared with absorbable sutures. In contrast, available data suggest that absorbable sutures have an advantage in meniscal healing.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The review was registered in the PROSPERO System Review International Pre-Registration System (Registration number CRD42021283739).
Topics: Arthroscopy; Cohort Studies; Knee Injuries; Meniscus; Sutures; Humans
PubMed: 37684657
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06602-8 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Jun 2023Medial meniscus posterior root (MMPR) injuries accelerate the progression of osteoarthritis. While partial meniscectomy was once considered the gold standard for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medial meniscus posterior root (MMPR) injuries accelerate the progression of osteoarthritis. While partial meniscectomy was once considered the gold standard for treatment, meniscus root repair has become increasingly utilized with reported improvements in clinical and biomechanical outcomes.
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review of biomechanical outcomes and a meta-analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes after MMPR repair.
STUDY DESIGN
Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2021 for studies reporting biomechanical, clinical, and radiographic outcomes after MMPR repair. Biomechanical studies were assessed for main results and conclusions. Data including study characteristics, cohort demographics, and outcomes were extracted. Included clinical studies were analyzed with a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions for binary outcomes or continuous outcomes for mean differences between preoperative and postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis for studies reporting repair outcomes with concomitant high tibial osteotomy (HTO) was performed where appropriate.
RESULTS
A total of 13 biomechanical studies were identified and reported an overall improvement in mean and peak contact pressures after MMPR repair. There were 24 clinical studies, consisting of 876 patients (877 knees), identified, with 3 studies (106 knees) reporting outcomes with concomitant HTO. The mean patient age was 57.1 years (range, 23-74 years), with a mean follow-up of 27.7 months (range, 2-64 months). Overall, clinical outcomes (Lysholm, Hospital for Special Surgery, International Knee Documentation Committee, visual analog scale for pain, Tegner, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score scores) were noted to improve postoperatively compared with preoperatively, with improved Lysholm scores in patients undergoing concomitant HTO versus MMPR repair alone. Meniscal extrusion was not significantly improved after MMPR repair compared with preoperative measurements. The progression in Kellgren-Lawrence grades from grade 0 to grades 1 to 3 occurred in 5.9% (21/354) of patients after repair, with no patients progressing from grades 1 to 3 to grade 4.
CONCLUSION
MMPR repair generally improved biomechanical outcomes and led to improved patient-reported outcomes with greater improvements noted in patients undergoing concomitant HTO. Repair did not significantly improve meniscal extrusion, while only 5.9% of patients were noted to progress to low-grade osteoarthritis. The high level of heterogeneity in the included biomechanical and clinical investigations emphasizes the need for more well-designed studies that evaluate outcomes after MMPR repair.
Topics: Humans; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Menisci, Tibial; Retrospective Studies; Knee Joint; Meniscectomy; Osteoarthritis; Arthroscopy
PubMed: 35384728
DOI: 10.1177/03635465221077271 -
Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and... Dec 2021To systematically review the literature to examine current understanding of the meniscofemoral ligaments (MFLs), their function, their importance in clinical management,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically review the literature to examine current understanding of the meniscofemoral ligaments (MFLs), their function, their importance in clinical management, and known anatomical variants.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Studies were included if they reported on the biomechanical, radiographic, or arthroscopic evaluation of human MFLs, or if they reported on an anatomical variant. These were then categorized as cadaveric, radiographic, or clinical. Biomechanical, radiographic, patient-reported, and functional outcomes data were recorded.
RESULTS
Forty-seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and 26 of them were included in the quantitative analysis. Of these, there were 15 cadaveric, 3 arthroscopic, and 9 radiographic studies that reported on the prevalence of MFLs. Overall, when looking at all modalities, the presence of either the anterior or posterior MFL (aMFL, pMFL) has been noted to be 70.8%, with it being the aMFL 17.4% and the pMFL 40.6%. The presence of both ligaments occurs in approximately 17.6% of individuals. Eleven reported on mean MFL length and thickness. When evaluating mean length in both men and women, the aMFL has been reported between 21.6 and 28.3 mm and the pMFL length in this population is between 23.4 and 31.2 mm. Five reported on cross-sectional area. Nine additional papers report anatomical variants.
CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that there continues to be a variable incidence of MFLs reported in the literature, but our understanding of their function continues to broaden. A growing number of anatomic and biomechanical studies have demonstrated the importance of the MFLs in supporting knee stability. Specifically, the MFLs serve an important role in protecting the lateral meniscus and augmenting the function of the posterior cruciate ligament.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Our findings will aid the clinician in both identifying and treating pathologies of the meniscofemoral ligaments.
PubMed: 34977667
DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.09.006