scholarly journals Return to Sport Activity After Meniscal Allograft Transplantation: At What Level and at What Cost? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Grassi ◽  
James R. Bailey ◽  
Giuseppe Filardo ◽  
Kristian Samuelsson ◽  
Stefano Zaffagnini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sport Activity ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Active Patients

Context: Meniscal injuries are common among both sport- and non–sport-related injuries, with over 1.7 million meniscal surgeries performed worldwide every year. As meniscal surgeries become more common, so does meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). However, little is known about the outcomes of MAT in active patients who desire to go back to preinjury activities. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate return to sport, clinical outcome, and complications after MAT in sport-active patients. Data Sources: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL electronic databases was performed on February 25, 2018. Study Selection: Studies of level 1 through 4 evidence looking at MAT in physically active patients with reported return to activity outcomes and at least 2-year follow-up were included. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Details of sport-related outcomes and reoperations were extracted and pooled in a meta-analysis. Results: Nine studies were included in this systematic review. A majority (77%) of athletes and physically active patients were able to return to sport after MAT; two-thirds were able to perform at preinjury levels. Graft-related reoperations were reported in 13% of patients, while the joint replacement rate with partial or total knee prosthesis was 1.2%. Conclusion: Physical activity after MAT appears possible, especially for low-impact sports. However, because of the limited number of studies, their low quality, and the short-term follow-up, the participation recommendation for high-impact and strenuous activities should be considered with caution until high-quality evidence of long-term safety becomes available.

Clinical Outcomes of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation With or Without Other Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (12) ◽  
pp. 3047-3056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bum-Sik Lee ◽  
Hyun-Jung Kim ◽  
Chang-Rack Lee ◽  
Seong-Il Bin ◽  
Dae-Hee Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Tibial Osteotomy ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: While additional procedures correcting accompanying pathological conditions can improve the clinical outcomes of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT), whether those outcomes are comparable or poorer than those of isolated MAT has yet to be clarified. Purpose:  To evaluate whether there is a difference in clinical outcomes between isolated MAT and MAT combined with other procedures (combined MAT). Study Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Methods: For the comparison of clinical outcomes between isolated MAT and combined MAT, the authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies that separately reported the clinical outcomes of isolated MAT and combined MAT were included. Clinical outcomes were evaluated in terms of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complication, reoperation, survivorship, and failure rates. We conducted a meta-analysis of the PROs that were used in more than 3 studies. Results: A total of 24 studies were included in this study. In the meta-analysis, no significant differences in Lysholm scores (95% CI, –5.92 to 1.55; P = .25), Tegner activity scores (95% CI, –0.54 to 0.22; P = .41), International Knee Documentation Committee subjective scores (95% CI, –5.67 to 3.37; P = .62), and visual analog scale scores (95% CI, –0.15 to 0.94; P = .16) were observed between isolated MAT and combined MAT. For PROs that were not included in the meta-analysis, most studies reported no significant difference between the 2 groups. As for the survivorship and failure rates, studies showed varying outcomes. Four studies reported that additional procedures did not affect MAT failure or survivorship. However, 3 studies reported that ligament surgery, realignment osteotomy, and osteochondral autograft transfer were risk factors of failure. One study reported that the medial MAT group in which high tibial osteotomy was performed showed a higher survival rate than the isolated medial MAT group. Conclusion: Overall, there seems to be no significant difference between the postoperative PROs in terms of isolated MAT and combined MAT. However, more data are required to verify the effects of osteotomy and cartilage procedures on the clinical outcomes of MAT. We could not draw conclusions about the differences in complication, reoperation, survivorship, and failure rates between the 2 groups because we did not obtain sufficient data.

Midterm and Long-term Results of Medial Versus Lateral Meniscal Allograft Transplantation: A Meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 1243-1250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seong-Il Bin ◽  
Kyung-Wook Nha ◽  
Ji-Young Cheong ◽  
Young-Soo Shin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Functional Improvement ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft

Background: It is unclear whether lateral meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) procedures lead to better clinical outcomes than medial MAT. Hypothesis: The survival rates are similar between medial and lateral MAT, but the clinical outcomes of lateral MAT are better than those of medial MAT at final follow-up. Study Design: Meta-analysis. Methods: In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that assessed survival rates in patients who underwent medial or lateral MAT with more than 5 years of follow-up and that used assessments such as pain and Lysholm scores to compare postoperative scores on knee outcome scales. The survival time was considered as the time to conversion to knee arthroplasty and/or subtotal resection of the allograft. Results: A total of 9 studies (including 287 knees undergoing surgery using medial MAT and 407 with lateral MAT) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of knees in which midterm (5-10 years) survival rates (medial, 97/113; lateral, 108/121; odds ratio [OR] 0.71; 95% CI, 0.31-1.64; P = .42) and long-term (>10 years) survival rates (medial, 303/576; lateral, 456/805; OR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52-1.17; P = .22) were evaluated did not differ significantly between medial and lateral MAT. In addition, both groups had substantial proportions of knees exhibiting midterm survivorship (85.8% for medial MAT and 89.2% for lateral MAT) but much lower proportions of knees exhibiting long-term survivorship (52.6% for medial MAT and 56.6% for lateral MAT). In contrast, overall pain score (medial, 65.6 points; lateral, 71.3 points; 95% CI, −3.95 to −0.87; P = .002) and Lysholm score (medial, 67.5 points; lateral, 72.0 points; 95% CI, −10.17 to −3.94; P < .00001) were significantly higher for lateral MAT compared with medial MAT. Conclusion: Meta-analysis indicated that 85.8% of medial and 89.2% of lateral meniscal allograft transplants survive at midterm (5-10 years) while 52.6% of medial and 56.6% of lateral meniscal allograft transplants survive long term (>10 years). Patients undergoing lateral meniscal allograft transplantation demonstrated greater pain relief and functional improvement than patients undergoing medial meniscal allograft transplantations.

Clinical Outcomes of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation With Respect to the Minimal Clinically Important Difference

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110361
Author(s):  
Lisa Su ◽  
Ignacio Garcia-Mansilla ◽  
Benjamin Kelley ◽  
Armin Arshi ◽  
Peter Fabricant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Fresh Frozen

Background: Arthroscopic-assisted meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has become a viable and effective treatment option for young active patients with postmeniscectomy pain. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is imperative to evaluate the clinical significance of surgical interventions and inform clinical practice guidelines in orthopaedic surgery. Purpose: To perform a systematic review of clinical outcome studies of patients undergoing MAT and compare postoperative improvement with established MCID thresholds. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. A meta-analysis was performed using data obtained from studies reporting patient-reported outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients undergoing isolated lateral MAT using fresh-frozen grafts. Weighted mean postoperative improvements in the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain) were calculated and compared with MCID values to determine if they met the MCID threshold. Results: A total of 35 studies were identified, including 1658 unique patients. Weighted mean postoperative score improvements exceeded MCID thresholds for the VAS pain, IKDC, and Lysholm. Subgroup analysis of patients undergoing isolated lateral fresh-frozen MAT demonstrated postoperative improvements exceeding the MCID for the Lysholm and VAS pain. Conclusion: Evaluating postoperative PROMs with respect to the MCID is crucial to evaluate the effect of MAT on functional improvement. The results of the present meta-analysis suggest that postoperative improvements after MAT are clinically meaningful as reflected by PROMs exceeding the MCID threshold for the IKDC, Lysholm, and VAS pain.

scholarly journals Prospective Evaluation Of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Revision: A Minimum Of 2-year Follow-up

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (7_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967114S0011
Author(s):  
Peter Nissen Chalmers ◽  
Adam Blair Yanke ◽  
Rachel M. Frank ◽  
Brian J. Cole
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Evaluation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft

scholarly journals Meniscal Allograft Transplantation: Factors Predicting Failure

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (5_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0019
Author(s):  
Ben Parkinson ◽  
Nicholas Smith ◽  
Peter Thompson ◽  
Tim Spalding
Keyword(s):  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Proportional Hazards Model ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards Model ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 1

Background: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been shown to provide a significant improvement in patient reported outcomes for individuals with post-menisectomy syndrome. The typical patients undergoing MAT often have multiple other pathologies that require treatment at the time of surgery and it is difficult to ascertain which factors influence the outcome. Hypothesis / Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the predictors of meniscal allograft transplantation failure in a large series in order to refine the indications for surgery and better inform future patients. Study Design: Prospective case series. Methods: All patients undergoing MAT at a single institution between May 2005 and May 2014, with a minimum of one year follow up were prospectively evaluated and included in this study. Failure was defined as removal of the allograft, revision transplantation or conversion to a joint replacement. Patients were grouped according to the articular cartilage status at the time of surgery; Group 1 – intact or partial thickness chondral loss; Group 2 - full thickness chondral loss one condyle; Group 3 - full thickness chondral loss both condyles. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine significant predictors of failure (cartilage grade at the time of MAT, IKDC score, lateral or medial allografts, gender, additional procedures and tissue bank source), independently of other factors. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were produced for overall survival and significant predictors of failure in the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: There were 125 consecutive MATs performed, with one patient lost to follow up. The median follow up was 3 years (range 1 – 10 years). The 5 year graft survival for the entire cohort was 82% (97% group 1, 82% group 2, 62% group 3). The probability of failure in group 1 was 85% lower (95% confidence interval 13 – 97%) than in group 3 at any time. The probability of failure with lateral allografts was 76% lower (95% confidence interval 16 – 89%) than medial allografts at any time. Conclusion: This study showed that the presence of severe cartilage damage at the time of MAT and medial allografts were significantly predictive of failure. Surgeons and patients can use this information when considering the risks and benefits of surgery.

scholarly journals Meniscal allograft transplantation: a meta-analysis

SICOT-J ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manolito De Bruycker ◽  
Peter. C.M. Verdonk ◽  
René C. Verdonk
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document