Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose This prospective study aimed to investigate the clinical benefits of meniscal repair during open-wedge high tibial osteotomies (OWHTOs) in patients with medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) and to identify potential risk factors for meniscal healing. Methods Ninety patients with degenerative MMPRTs were included in the final cohort and randomized into three groups. The patients in Group A ( n  = 30) underwent OWHTO and arthroscopic all-inside meniscal repair concurrently, those in Group B ( n  = 34) underwent OWHTO only, and those in Group C ( n  = 26) underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Clinical and radiological outcomes were recorded, and meniscal healing was evaluated during second-look arthroscopy. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for meniscal healing. Results After a minimum follow-up of 24 months, no significant differences between Groups A and B regarding the final Lysholm ( p  = 0.689) or Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) scores ( p  = 0.256) were observed. There were significant differences among the three groups regarding the hip–knee–ankle angle (HKA), weight-bearing line (WBL) ratio, medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and joint line convergence angle (JLCA) ( p  < 0.001, respectively), but the differences between Groups A and B were not significant. During second-look arthroscopy, the healing rate of the MMPRTs was significantly higher in Group A (63.3%) than in Group B (35.3%). Concurrent meniscal repair and changes in the HKA, and MPTA were risk factors for meniscal healing. Conclusion Concurrent arthroscopic meniscal repair during OWHTO did not lead to significant clinical benefits in the treatment of MMPRTs, except for an increased rate of meniscal healing, which was not associated with clinical outcomes. Level of evidence II, prospective comparative study.

ObjectiveTo assess if arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is superior to placebo surgery in the treatment of patients with degenerative tear of the medial meniscus.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial, 146 adults, aged 35–65 years, with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis were randomised to APM or placebo surgery. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Lysholm knee scores and knee pain after exercise at 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of unblinding of the treatment-group allocation, participants' satisfaction, impression of change, return to normal activities, the incidence of serious adverse events and the presence of meniscal symptoms in clinical examination. Two subgroup analyses, assessing the outcome on those with mechanical symptoms and those with unstable meniscus tears, were also carried out.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the mean changes from baseline to 24 months in WOMET score: 27.3 in the APM group as compared with 31.6 in the placebo-surgery group (between-group difference, −4.3; 95% CI, −11.3 to 2.6); Lysholm knee score: 23.1 and 26.3, respectively (−3.2; −8.9 to 2.4) or knee pain after exercise, 3.5 and 3.9, respectively (−0.4; −1.3 to 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes or within the analysed subgroups.ConclusionsIn this 2-year follow-up of patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after APM were no better than those after placebo surgery. No evidence could be found to support the prevailing ideas that patients with presence of mechanical symptoms or certain meniscus tear characteristics or those who have failed initial conservative treatment are more likely to benefit from APM.

ObjectivesTo assess the long-term effects of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) on the development of radiographic knee osteoarthritis, and on knee symptoms and function, at 5 years follow-up.DesignMulticentre, randomised, participant- and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial.SettingOrthopaedic departments in five public hospitals in Finland.Participants146 adults, mean age 52 years (range 35–65 years), with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear verified by MRI scan and arthroscopically, and no clinical signs of knee osteoarthritis were randomised.InterventionsAPM or placebo surgery (diagnostic knee arthroscopy).Main outcome measuresWe used two indices of radiographic knee osteoarthritis (increase in Kellgren and Lawrence grade ≥1, and increase in Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas radiographic joint space narrowing and osteophyte sum score, respectively), and three validated patient-relevant measures of knee symptoms and function (Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET), Lysholm, and knee pain after exercise using a numerical rating scale).ResultsThere was a consistent, slightly greater risk for progression of radiographic knee osteoarthritis in the APM group as compared with the placebo surgery group (adjusted absolute risk difference in increase in Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥1 of 13%, 95% CI −2% to 28%; adjusted absolute mean difference in OARSI sum score 0.7, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.3). There were no relevant between-group differences in the three patient-reported outcomes: adjusted absolute mean differences (APM vs placebo surgery), −1.7 (95% CI −7.7 to 4.3) in WOMET, −2.1 (95% CI −6.8 to 2.6) in Lysholm knee score, and −0.04 (95% CI −0.81 to 0.72) in knee pain after exercise, respectively. The corresponding adjusted absolute risk difference in the presence of mechanical symptoms was 18% (95% CI 5% to 31%); there were more symptoms reported in the APM group. All other secondary outcomes comparisons were similar.ConclusionsAPM was associated with a slightly increased risk of developing radiographic knee osteoarthritis and no concomitant benefit in patient-relevant outcomes, at 5 years after surgery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01052233 and NCT00549172).

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.

ObjectiveTo evaluate radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA) progression, development of knee OA, patient-reported outcomes and knee muscle strength at 10-year follow-up after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) or exercise therapy for degenerative meniscal tears.MethodsRandomised controlled trial including 140 participants, with a degenerative meniscal tear and no or minimal radiographic OA changes. Participants were randomised to either APM or 12 weeks of exercise therapy (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome was knee OA progression assessed by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas sum score (sum of medial and lateral compartment joint space narrowing and osteophyte score). Secondary outcomes included incidence of radiographic and symptomatic knee OA, patient-reported pain and knee function and isokinetic knee muscle strength.ResultsThe adjusted mean difference in change in the OARSI sum score was 0.39 (95% CI −0.19 to 0.97), with more progression in the APM group. The incidence of radiographic knee OA was 23% in the APM group and 20% in the exercise group (adjusted risk difference 3% (95% CI −13% to 19%)). No clinically relevant differences were found in patient-reported outcomes or isokinetic knee muscle strength.ConclusionNo differences in radiographic knee OA progression and comparable rates of knee OA development were observed 10 years following APM and exercise therapy for degenerative meniscal tears. Both treatments were associated with improved patient-reported pain and knee function.Trial registration number NCT01002794.

IntroductionPain and disability after meniscectomy can be a substantial lifelong problem. There are few treatment options, especially for young people. Non-surgical management (rehabilitation) is an option but increasingly surgeons are performing meniscal allograft transplants (MATs) for these individuals. However, this is still an uncommon procedure, and availability and usage of MAT vary widely both in the UK and internationally. It is not known which treatment option is the most effective and cost-effective.Methods and analysisThe Meniscal Transplant surgery or Optimised Rehabilitation trial is an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of MAT versus an optimised package of individualised, progressive, rehabilitation that we have called personalised knee therapy (PKT).Participants will be recruited from sites across the UK, Australia, Canada and Belgium. The planned 144 participants provide at least 90% power to detect a 10-point difference in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) at 24-months post randomisation (primary outcome). A prospectively planned economic evaluation will be conducted from a healthcare system and personal social services perspective. Secondary outcome data including health utility, occupational status, sports participation, mental well-being, further treatment, and adverse events will be collected at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis and reported in-line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the London—Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee on 19 August 2022 (22/LO/0327) and Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee, NSW, Australia on the 13 March 2023 (2022/ETH01890).Trial results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, in lay summaries and using social media as appropriate.This protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.Trial registration number ISRCTN87336549.

There is a paucity of high-quality evidence about the long-term effects (ie, 3-5 years and beyond) of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy vs exercise-based physical therapy for patients with degenerative meniscal tears. To compare the 5-year effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and exercise-based physical therapy on patient-reported knee function and progression of knee osteoarthritis in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear. A noninferiority, multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in the orthopedic departments of 9 hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 321 patients aged 45 to 70 years with a degenerative meniscal tear participated. Data collection took place between July 12, 2013, and December 4, 2020. Patients were randomly allocated to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or 16 sessions of exercise-based physical therapy. The primary outcome was patient-reported knee function (International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) during 5 years of follow-up based on the intention-to-treat principle, with a noninferiority threshold of 11 points. The secondary outcome was progression in knee osteoarthritis shown on radiographic images in both treatment groups. Of 321 patients (mean [SD] age, 58 [6.6] years; 161 women [50.2%]), 278 patients (87.1%) completed the 5-year follow-up with a mean follow-up time of 61.8 months (range, 58.8-69.5 months). From baseline to 5-year follow-up, the mean (SD) improvement was 29.6 (18.7) points in the surgery group and 25.1 (17.8) points in the physical therapy group. The crude between-group difference was 3.5 points (95% CI, 0.7-6.3 points; P < .001 for noninferiority). The 95% CI did not exceed the noninferiority threshold of 11 points. Comparable rates of progression of radiographic-demonstrated knee osteoarthritis were noted between both treatments. In this noninferiority randomized clinical trial after 5 years, exercise-based physical therapy remained noninferior to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for patient-reported knee function. Physical therapy should therefore be the preferred treatment over surgery for degenerative meniscal tears. These results can assist in the development and updating of current guideline recommendations about treatment for patients with a degenerative meniscal tear. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01850719.

ObjectiveTo compare the effect of early surgery versus exercise and education on mechanical symptoms and other patient-reported outcomes in patients aged 18–40 years with a meniscal tear and self-reported mechanical knee symptoms.MethodsIn a randomised controlled trial, 121 patients aged 18–40 years with a MRI-verified meniscal tear were randomised to surgery or 12-week supervised exercise and education. For this study, 63 patients (33 and 30 patients in the surgery and in the exercise group, respectively) reporting baseline mechanical symptoms were included. The main outcome was self-reported mechanical symptoms (yes/no) at 3, 6 and 12 months assessed using a single item from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Secondary outcomes were KOOS4 and the 5 KOOS-subscales and the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).ResultsIn total, 55/63 patients completed the 12-month follow-up. At 12 months, 9/26 (35%) in the surgery group and 20/29 (69%) in the exercise group reported mechanical symptoms. The risk difference and relative risk at any time point was 28.7% (95% CI 8.6% to 48.8%) and 1.83 (95% CI 0.98 to 2.70) of reporting mechanical symptoms in the exercise group compared with the surgery group. We did not detect any between-group differences in the secondary outcomes.ConclusionThe results from this secondary analysis suggest that early surgery is more effective than exercise and education for relieving self-reported mechanical knee symptoms, but not for improving pain, function and quality of life in young patients with a meniscal tear and mechanical symptoms.Trial registration number NCT02995551.

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.

IntroductionOur main objective was to evaluate clinically and radiologically and compare patients who had undergone partial meniscectomy alone, with those who had received a partial meniscectomy in which a polyurethane implant was placed, with a minimum follow-up of 5 years.MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study. Patients were randomly distributed into Group A if they only received meniscectomy or Group B if they received meniscectomy plus a meniscal implant (Actifit®). We performed preoperative, postoperative, and 5-year-follow-up functional and radiological evaluations (magnetic resonance imaging).ResultsTwelve patients (40%) were treated with meniscal implants (Group B); 18 (60%) were treated with a conventional meniscectomy (Group A). Tegner, Lysholm and KOOS scores were evaluated prior to surgery and at 5-year follow-up. Only the Lysholm score showed a significant difference between groups, with a score increase between the preoperative evaluation and the 5-year follow-up evaluation (p = 0.013). Preoperative and postoperative MRIs were both available in 19 cases (63.3%). Long-term follow-up MRIs were performed in 11 cases of group B. No significant differences were found in functional outcomes or MRI findings (WORMS cartilage score increase p = 0.360). Although total reabsorptions of the collagen meniscus implant were not statistically significant in younger patients, a tendency towards a higher reabsorption process was seen in older patients (p = 0.015).ConclusionThe placement of a polyurethane implant after a wide meniscectomy is not accompanied by a chondroprotective effect over time. There is no functional difference between implant placement and isolated meniscectomy. There is a discrepancy between good clinical results and radiologic appearance of these implants and their underlying cartilage.Level of evidenceII, therapeutic study.