|
|
The presentation brings an update on CMI now with 20y clinical results and Actifit 10y documented clin findings. The indications for meniscal scaffolds are several and solutions do not seem to be accessible ....
|
|
|
Biomechanical and surgical technique evaluating the use of soft anchor fixation for radial lateral meniscus and medial root repairs. Both cadaveric testing and surgical technique will be presented.
|
|
|
Meniscal tears are one of the most common knee injuries. Symptomatic tears are routinely treated by meniscectomies, which can lead to knee osteoarthritis, or by meniscal repairs that preserve the meniscus but potentially increase reoperation risk. An all-inside meniscus repair utilizes implants to fixate the meniscus at a higher cost than traditional inside out or outside in suturing technique. The success rate of these meniscal implants, however, is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of implants successfully deployed during arthroscopic all-inside repair.
Methods: A data query of meniscus repair (CPT codes: 29882 and 29883) procedures was performed at a single institution. The query was limited to include procedures performed between June 1, 2020 and June 1, 2023. Multiple different manufacturer implants were used by 5 sports medicine fellowship trained orthopaedic surgeons. The number of implants successfully used and number of implants wasted due to intra-operative failure during meniscal repair were found on EPIC and documented for each procedure. Success rate of meniscal implants was determined by dividing the number of implants wasted by the total amount of implants used.
Results: The query identified 1026 patients that underwent meniscus repair. From this cohort, 3,867 total meniscal implants for an average of 3.77 implants per case. Overall, all inside meniscus repair was found to have a low implant failure or waste rate (1.03% [n = 40]). The highest failure rates were found with JuggerStitchTM Curved (9.38%), NOVOSTITCHTM Cartridge 0 Suture (2.44%), and TRUESPANTM 12 Degrees (2.11%) implants.
Conclusions: The most important finding was that the overall failure rate of meniscal implants is low. Implants with higher waste rates should be addressed by industry and considered by surgeons when selecting surgical implants. These preliminary findings establish the necessity to further examine implant failure rate and associated costs of meniscus repair.
|
|
|
Simulated Biomechanical Analysis of Optimal Knee Alignment for Treating Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tears
1,4Hiranaka, Takaaki; 2Redgrif, Adam; 2Li, Yizhao; 2Madia, Larissa; 2Willing, Ryan; 1,3Getgood, Alan
1 Fowler Kennedy Sports Medicine Clinic, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, 2 Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada, 3Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar, 4Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, St Leonards, NSW, Australia
Introduction: Medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO) corrects varus alignment; however, the optimal knee alignment during MOWHTO for medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRT) remains unclear. This study aims to determine the optimal biomechanical alignment for MMPRT treatment.
Materials & Methods: This study utilized ten fresh-frozen cadaveric legs from human donors. A joint motion simulator was used to assess weight-bearing line positions (%WBL) ranging from 30% to 70%, with neutral alignment defined as 50% WBL, simulating MOWHTO. Tibiofemoral mean contact pressure (MCP) was measured using Tekscan sensors in each compartment under a 700 N load. MMPRT models were generated via a femoral posterior approach and repaired with suture anchors. Measurements were obtained for intact, MMPRT, and repair conditions ranging from 30% to 70% WBL.
Results: In the medial compartment, MCP increased significantly by 49% in the MMPRT condition compared to the intact condition (p = 0.002), while in the repair condition, the increase was not significant at 8% (p = 0.851). With varus alignment, MCP increased under all conditions, with the largest statistically significant differences observed at 30% WBL (P <0.001). MCP at neutral alignment in the intact condition equaled those at 60–65% and 50–55% WBL in the MMPRT and repair conditions, respectively (Figure 1). In the lateral compartment, MCP increased with valgus alignment, with no significant differences among conditions.
Discussions: The findings suggest that 60–65% WBL is the optimal biomechanical alignment for unrepairable MMPRT, supporting a previous clinical study targeting 62–62.5% WBL 1. In contrast, 50–55% WBL is adequate for repairable MMPRT. These results emphasize adjusting alignment based on meniscal status and highlight the need for patient-specific strategies.
Conclusion: The optimal biomechanical alignment for MOWHTO in the treatment of MMPRT is 60–65% WBL for unrepaired cases and 50–55% WBL for repaired cases.
|
|
|
Background: Following meniscal root repair, currently published post operative protocols typically restrict weightbearing and range of motion immediately following surgery. However, there is a paucity of data to support current standard practices. The goal of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of meniscal root repair for patients with protected immediate postoperative weightbearing versus patients allowed immediate weightbearing as tolerated.
Methods: A consecutive series of patients from a single institution aged 18 and over that underwent meniscal root repair from 2017-2024 were retrospectively reviewed. Those undergoing additional procedures not including chondroplasty or partial meniscectomy and those with less than 60 days of post-operative follow up were excluded. Patients were divided into three categories based on post-operative weightbearing and range of motion restrictions: restricted weightbearing (touchdown or partial, PWB), weightbearing as tolerated (WBAT-ext) with knee locked in extension, and weightbearing as tolerated without restriction (WBAT). Primary outcome was re-operation on the ipsilateral knee and secondary outcomes included post-operative corticosteroid or viscosupplementation injection and pre- to post-operative changes in a ten-point virtual analog scale (VAS) for pain and PROMIS physical function score.
Results: A total of 173 patients included for analysis at an average follow up of 8.5 months, of which 37 were PWB, 62 were WBAT-ext, and 74 were WBAT. There were significant differences in the age, initial Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) score, and highest grade of intra-operative chondromalacia between groups with the PWB group being younger with less radiographic arthritis and intra-operative chondromalacia (Table 1). There was no difference in re-operation rate, post-operative injection rate, VAS scores or PROMIS physical function scores between groups.
Conclusions: There was no significant increase in negative outcomes with immediate post-operative weightbearing without range of motion restrictions in patients undergoing meniscal root repair in this retrospective case series. Patients may be able to achieve similar outcomes without restricting motion or weightbearing post-operatively.
|
|
|
Long term follow-up after ACL reconstruction has shown that 18-71% of patients develop osteoarthritis, with increased rates of lateral compartment osteoarthritis in ACL deficient knees. The anterior horn lateral meniscus root (ALMR) in in close proximity to the ACL footprint and is known to be at risk for injury during drilling of the tibial tunnel. Less studied is the impact of iatrogenic injury to the root of the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus (ALMR) during ACL reconstruction.
While uncommonly injured, the ALMR plays an important role in load transmission. Disruption of meniscal roots impairs hoop stress transmission potentially accelerating cartilage degeneration. Biomechanical studies evaluating nonrepaired tears and meniscectomies of the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus report a 78% increase in peak contact pressure compared to an intact meniscus, supporting the importance of an intact ALMR on knee kinematics.
This cadaveric study aims to elucidate the clinical impact of iatrogenic injury to the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus during ACL reconstruction. No prior cadaveric studies have evaluated what percentage loss of the ALMR after reaming of the tibial tunnel leads to a significant change in contact pressures and contact area in the knee. We hypothesize that damage to the ALMR will increase with larger diameter reamers, resulting in increased contact pressures and decreased contact area in the lateral compartment. This will have a direct impact on clinical practice, with significant results impacting surgeon’s choice of the size of tibial tunnel for ACL reconstruction.
|
|
|
Background: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is indicated in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to restore proper arthrokinematics and load distribution for the meniscus-deficient knee. Objective outcomes after ACL reconstruction with concomitant MAT in athletic populations are scarcely reported and highly variable.
Purpose: To compare patient outcomes using an objective functional performance battery, self-reported outcome measures, and return-to-sport rates between individuals undergoing ACL reconstruction with concomitant MAT and a matched group undergoing isolated ACL reconstruction.
Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods: A single-surgeon ACL reconstruction database (N = 1,431) was used to identify patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with concomitant MAT between 2014 and 2019. Patients were age-, sex-, and revision-matched to a group undergoing isolated ACL reconstruction. Baseline patient and surgical data were obtained. Patients completed an objective functional performance battery at the time of return to sport that included range of motion, single-leg squat performance, single-leg hop test performance, self-reported function (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] score), and psychological readiness (ACL Return to Sports After Injury scale). Between-limb comparisons were assessed using limb symmetry indices. Injury surveillance was conducted for 2-years and included the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), reinjury rates, complications, and current level of sports participation. Between-group comparisons at the time of return to sport and 2 years later were analyzed using generalized linear models for parametric and nonparametric equivalents with an a priori alpha level of .05.
Results: A total of 46 patients were included in the ACL reconstruction with concomitant MAT group (38 medial MAT, 8 lateral MAT), and 46 patients were included in the isolated ACL reconstruction group. Baseline differences existed between groups, with the MAT group exhibiting lower body weight (84.0 ± 14.1 vs 93.2 ± 19.8 kg; P = .036) and Marx scores (4.8 ± 4.5 vs 9.3 ± 4.1; P = .024) than the isolated ACL reconstruction group, respectively. At the time of return to sport, the MAT group reported lower IKDC scores (83.2 ± 12.6 vs 91.1 ± 11.3; P = .037); however, no other functional performance or self-reported differences were observed. At 2 years, no significant differences existed between groups for SANE score (87.8 ± 12.3 vs 89.3 ± 11.4; P = .793), ACL graft reinjury rates (6.5% vs 2.2%; P = .688), or level of return to sport (P > .05). The MAT group demonstrated a significantly lower rate of return to previous level of sport (69.5% vs 78.3%; P = .026).
Conclusion: The majority of patients (87%) undergoing ACL reconstruction with concomitant MAT were able to return to some level of sports participation at 2 years with a low risk of revision ACL reconstruction or meniscal transplant failure. Patients receiving a concomitant MAT exhibited lower self-reported function at return to sport compared with matched controls undergoing isolated ACL reconstruction; however, these differences were not present at 2 years. Clinicians should consider patient characteristics, self-reported function, and return-to-sport rates when counseling patients regarding ACL reconstruction with MAT.
|
|
|
The purpose is to highlight controversies regarding meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) in 2025. The intention is to provide a high level overview of innovation gaps with focus on areas of improvement. Topics to debate include surgical indications, technical factors (graft type/sizing, surgical technique, management of mismatch/extrusion), biologic augmentation, rehabilitation, and RTP.
|