Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the benefits of the clinical outcome of meniscal injury diagnosis and surgical management during the reconstruction of cranial cruciate ligament rupture (RCCL) in dogs. For these purpose two groups with 2 different surgery regimens; group 1 (G1), RCCL was corrected with partial meniscectomy and tibial tuberosity advancement (TTA), and another one (group-2, G2) only with TTA. Long-term follow-up about postoperative complications and any recurrence of signs were recorded by referring veterinarians by medical questionnaire over telephone contact and radiographic postoperative follow-up of bone healing was evaluated. Meniscal injuries were diagnosed arthroscopically in five dogs out of six dogs, and corrected by partial meniscectomy arthroscopically. The percentage of presence of meniscal injury was 83%. It was found that clinical outcomes were superior in G1 than G2 group both walking starting time (4.6±2.5 and 6.4±2.9 days, respectively) or full recovery time (39.2±26.9 and 58.1±24.5 days, respectively) was significantly shortage (P<0.05) along with less postoperative complication at two years postoperative observation. Out of the five dogs, lameness, arthritis was developed in four dogs in G2 group while the number of dogs was two in G1 group within two years. Finally based on the clinical superiority, it is recommended that meniscal injury should be checked and corrected during RCCL reconstruction for getting better clinical outcomes.

Purpose A degenerative meniscus lesion is a slowly developing process typically involving a horizontal cleavage in a middle-aged or older person. When the knee is symptomatic, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy has been practised for a long time with many case series reporting improved patient outcomes. Since 2002, several randomised clinical trials demonstrated no additional benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared to non-operative treatment, sham surgery or sham arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. These results introduced controversy in the medical community and made clinical decision-making challenging in the daily clinical practice. To facilitate the clinical decision-making process, a consensus was developed. This initiative was endorsed by ESSKA. Methods A degenerative meniscus lesion was defined as a lesion occurring without any history of significant acute trauma in a patient older than 35 years. Congenital lesions, traumatic meniscus tears and degenerative lesions occurring in young patients, especially in athletes, were excluded. The project followed the so-called formal consensus process, involving a steering group, a rating group and a peer-review group. A total of 84 surgeons and scientists from 22 European countries were included in the process. Twenty questions, their associated answers and an algorithm based on extensive literature review and clinical expertise, were proposed. Each question and answer set was graded according to the scientific level of the corresponding literature. Results The main finding was that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy should not be proposed as a first line of treatment for degenerative meniscus lesions. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy should only be considered after a proper standardised clinical and radiological evaluation and when the response to non-operative management has not been satisfactory. Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee is typically not indicated in the first-line work-up, but knee radiography should be used as an imaging tool to support a diagnosis of osteoarthritis or to detect certain rare pathologies, such as tumours or fractures of the knee. Discussion The present work offers a clear framework for the management of degenerative meniscus lesions, with the aim to balance information extracted from the scientific evidence and clinical expertise. Because of biases and weaknesses of the current literature and lack of definition of important criteria such as mechanical symptoms, it cannot be considered as an exact treatment algorithm. It summarises the results of the “ESSKA Meniscus Consensus Project” ( http://www.esska.org/education/projects ) and is the first official European consensus on this topic. The consensus may be updated and refined as more high-quality evidence emerges. Level of evidence I.

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/m 2 . 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.

ObjectivesTo examine whether physical therapy (PT) is cost-effective compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients with a non-obstructive meniscal tear, we performed a full trial-based economic evaluation from a societal perspective. In a secondary analysis—this paper—we examined whether PT is non-inferior to APM.MethodsWe recruited patients aged 45–70 years with a non-obstructive meniscal tear in nine Dutch hospitals. Resource use was measured using web-based questionnaires. Measures of effectiveness included knee function using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Follow-up was 24 months. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. The non-inferiority margins for societal costs, the IKDC and QALYs, were €670, 8 points and 0.057 points, respectively.ResultsWe randomly assigned 321 patients to PT (n=162) or APM (n=159). PT was associated with significantly lower costs after 24 months compared with APM (−€1803; 95% CI −€3008 to −€838). The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was 1.00 at a willingness to pay of €0/unit of effect for the IKDC (knee function) and QALYs (quality of life) and decreased with increasing values of willingness to pay. The probability that PT is non-inferior to APM was 0.97 for all non-inferiority margins for the IKDC and 0.89 for QALYs.ConclusionsThe probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was relatively high at reasonable values of willingness to pay for the IKDC and QALYs. Also, PT had a relatively high probability of being non-inferior to APM for both outcomes. This warrants further deimplementation of APM in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears.Trial registration numbers NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

The intra-articular corticosteroid injection (IACI) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) are crucial treatment options for meniscus tears and are widely used in clinical practice. To determine whether there are differences in the progression of osteoarthritis (OA) after APM and IACI treatments for degenerative meniscal tears, and to identify the influencing factors. We finally collected the minimum joint space width (JSW), WOMAC score, and KOOS score of 189 patients after 4 years of follow-up. The mixed effects model and general estimating equation were used to analyze the differences in the progression of knee osteoarthritis and the factors affecting the progression of knee osteoarthritis in patients with degenerative meniscus tears who received different treatments. Over a 48-month follow-up period, all three groups showed a decreasing trend in knee JSW, with the IACI group having the fastest JSW decline rate at -0.020 mm/month (95% CI: -0.027 to -0.013, p  < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the JSW decline rate among the three groups. The WOMAC total scores for both the IACI and APM groups showed an improving trend, at -0.123/month (95% CI: -0.211 to -0.036, p  < 0.01) and − 0.115/month (95% CI: -0.201 to -0.028, p  < 0.01) respectively, with no statistical difference between the two groups. BMI was also a significant factor affecting postoperative JSW (regression coefficients: -0.012, 95% CI: -0.022 to 0.001, p  = 0.03) and WOMAC total scores (regression coefficients: 0.189, 95% CI: 0.008 to 0.370, p  = 0.04). Compared to single IACI, multiple IACI treatments resulted in faster JSW decline (B: 0.430, 95% CI: 1.012 to 2.336, p  = 0.04). Patients with degenerative meniscal tears who undergo either IACI or APM treatment exhibit more pronounced progression of knee osteoarthritis compared to those in the non-treatment group. This form of deterioration is mainly driven by BMI.

Background: Given the superiority of meniscal repair over partial meniscectomy according to biomechanical data, the clinical outcomes of meniscal repair are likely to be better than those of partial meniscectomy for a medial meniscus root tear (MMRT). Purpose/Hypothesis: This review was designed to compare the clinical and radiological results between meniscal repair and partial meniscectomy for MMRTs. It was hypothesized that meniscal repair would result in better clinical and radiological results compared with partial meniscectomy. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Studies were included in the review if they (1) included patients with MMRTs who underwent primary arthroscopic meniscal repair or partial meniscectomy and (2) analyzed validated patient-reported outcomes and/or radiological evaluations. Summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated to compare partial meniscectomy with meniscal repair for each outcome. Results: A total of 13 studies were included. The mean duration of follow-up was 33.5 and 47.2 months in the meniscal repair group and partial meniscectomy group, respectively. The change in the Lysholm score from preoperatively to postoperatively was statistically significantly in favor of meniscal repair (OR, 2.20 [95% CI, 1.55-3.12]), while no difference was found with respect to the change in the Tegner score between the 2 surgical approaches (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.65-2.24]). The prevalence of postoperative severe knee osteoarthritis (OR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.17-0.54]) as well as that of reoperations (OR, 0.05 [95% CI, 0.01-0.19]) were significantly in favor of meniscal repair. Conclusion Better outcomes were seen after meniscal repair compared with partial meniscectomy for MMRTs, with greater improvements in Lysholm scores, and lower rates of progression to knee osteoarthritis, and lower reoperation rate.

The menisci exert a prominent role in joint stabilization and in the distribution of mechanical loading. Meniscal damage is associated with increased risk of knee OA. The aim of this study was to characterize the synovial membrane and meniscal tissues in patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for meniscal tear and to evaluate association with clinical outcomes. A total of 109 patients were recruited. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) measuring pain and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were recorded at baseline and at 2-years follow-up. Histological and immunohistochemical characterizations were performed on synovial membranes and meniscal tissues. More than half of the patients demonstrated synovial mononuclear cell infiltration and hyperplasia. Synovial fibrosis was present in most of the patients; marked vascularity and CD68 positivity were observed. Inflammation had an impact on both pain and knee symptoms. Patients with synovial inflammation had higher values of pre-operative VAS and inflammation. Higher pre-operative pain was observed in patients with meniscal MMP-13 production. In conclusion, multivariate analysis showed that synovial inflammation was associated with pre-operative total KOOS scores, knee symptoms, and pain. Moreover, meniscal MMP-13 expression was found to be associated with pre-operative pain in multivariate analysis. Thus, targeting inflammation of the synovial membrane and meniscus might reduce clinical symptoms and dysfunction at the time of surgery.

IntroductionThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze and compare the rate of secondary meniscus and cartilage lesions diagnosed at different time points of ACL reconstruction.Materials and methodsA systematic search for articles comparing the rate of secondary meniscus and cartilage lesions diagnosed at different time points of ACL reconstruction was performed. PubMed central was the database used for the literature review.ResultsForty articles out of 1836 were included. In 35 trials (88%), there was evidence of a positive correlation between the rate of meniscus and/or cartilage lesions and the time since ACL injury. This correlation was more evident for the medial meniscus in comparison with the lateral meniscus. In particular, a delay of more than 6 months was critical for secondary medial meniscus injuries [risk ratio 0.58 (95% CI 0.44–0.79)] and a delay of more than 12 months was critical for cartilage injuries [risk ratio 0.42 (95% CI 0.29–0.59)]. Additionally, there is evidence that the chance for meniscal repair decreases as the time since ACL rupture increases.ConclusionChronic instability in the ACL-deficient knee is associated with a significant increase of medial meniscus injuries after 6 months followed by a significant increase of cartilage lesions after 12 months.

Background and objectives Meniscal root tears significantly impair knee biomechanics and can lead to early osteoarthritis if left untreated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the efficacy of different treatment techniques in patients with meniscal root tears. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted using specific MeSH terms and related keywords. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and analyzed using a random-effects model. Outcomes assessed included Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and medial meniscus extrusion (MME). Results Thirty-three studies were included. Both pull-out and all-inside repairs demonstrated significant improvements in functional outcomes. For Lysholm scores, pull-out repair showed a mean difference (MD) of 29.9 (95% CI 26.7–33.0; I² = 97%), and all-inside repair showed an MD of 39.7 (95% CI 31.6–47.8; I² = 98%). Improvements were smaller following partial meniscectomy (MD 23.5, 95% CI 15.6–31.4; I² = 98%) and conservative treatment (MD 16.9, 95% CI 1.8–32.0; I² = 74%). IKDC outcomes mirrored these findings, with pull-out repair yielding an MD of 28.8 (95% CI 26.5–31.2; I² = 86%) and all-inside repair an MD of 33.9 (95% CI 17.4–50.4; I² = 98%). Partial meniscectomy (MD 16.7, 95% CI − 1.2–45.6; I² = 98%) and conservative care (MD 16.2, 95% CI − 3.6–36.0; I² = 90%) showed non-significant or modest gains. None of the interventions, including pull-out repair (MD − 0.1 mm, 95% CI − 0.5–0.4; I² = 93%) or all-inside repair (MD 0.0 mm, 95% CI − 0.4–0.4; I² = 0%), resulted in significant improvements in medial meniscal extrusion. Conclusions Anatomical repair techniques, particularly pull-out and all-inside methods, appear to provide better functional outcomes for meniscal root tears than partial meniscectomy or conservative care. However, given the low certainty of evidence, further high-quality studies are needed to clarify structural outcomes and optimize long-term joint preservation strategies.