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

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.

Download Full-text

Meniscal allograft transplantation: A 1- to 5-year follow-up of 22 patients

Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery ◽

10.1016/s0749-8063(00)90077-x ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 16 (4) ◽

pp. 343-347 ◽

Cited By ~ 159

Author(s):

George T. Stollsteimer ◽

Walter R. Shelton ◽

Andrea Dukes ◽

Anna Laura Bomboy

Keyword(s):

Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽

Allograft Transplantation ◽

Meniscal Allograft

Download Full-text

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

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546517709777 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 46 (5) ◽

pp. 1243-1250 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

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.

Download Full-text