scholarly journals Lateral Capsular Stabilization in Lateral Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 232596712110286
Author(s):  
Young-Jin Seo ◽  
Nam-Hong Choi ◽  
Byung-Hun Hwangbo ◽  
Ji-Sun Hwang ◽  
Brian N. Victoroff
Keyword(s):  
Tibial Plateau ◽  
Joint Space ◽  
Lysholm Score ◽  
Mri Findings ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Tegner Score ◽  
Group 1

Background: Stabilization of the lateral capsule to the tibial plateau may decrease midbody extrusion after lateral meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). However, there is a paucity of literature reporting on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings after lateral capsular stabilization (LCS) at the time of lateral MAT. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to describe MRI findings after LCS and compare postoperative extrusion between isolated lateral MAT and lateral MAT with LCS. It was hypothesized that allograft extrusion would be reduced after MAT with LCS but that the stabilized capsule would increase the risk of tears to the capsule or allograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were patients who underwent lateral MAT with 6-month follow-up MRI. Concomitant LCS was performed for patients with redundant lateral capsule displaced from the lateral tibial plateau as evident on coronal MRI or arthroscopic examination (MAT+LCS group); otherwise, patients underwent MAT only (isolated MAT group). The Lysholm score, Tegner score, and lateral joint space on radiographs were compared between the 2 groups at 2 years postoperatively, and the stabilized lateral capsule and allograft were evaluated using 6-month follow-up MRI. Extrusion, rotation, and position of the allograft bridge were compared between the 2 groups. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors predictive of degree of extrusion. Results: There were 10 patients in the MAT+LCS group and 13 patients in the isolated MAT group. No significant differences were found between groups in preoperative patient characteristics or postoperative Lysholm score, Tegner score, lateral joint space, or MRI parameters. Postoperative extrusion was not related to obliquity angle, position of the bony bridge, or presence of LCS. In the MAT+LCS group, 1 patient showed a tear of the lateral capsule and a radial tear of the allograft, and 3 patients had a meniscocapsular separation at the midbody of the allograft. In the isolated MAT group, 1 patient had a peripheral tear at the midbody, but there was no tear of the allograft in the other patients. Conclusion: LCS did not decrease extrusion of lateral meniscal transplantation, but it can lead to increased risk for graft or capsule tear.

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.

Meniscal Deficiency Period and High Body Mass Index Are Preoperative Risk Factors for Joint Space Narrowing After Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 693-699
Author(s):  
Sang-Min Lee ◽  
Seong-Il Bin ◽  
Jong-Min Kim ◽  
Bum-Sik Lee ◽  
Kuen Tak Suh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Femoral Condyle ◽  
Joint Space ◽  
Preoperative Risk ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Preoperative Risk Factors ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
The Difference

Background: Several studies have reported further reduction in joint space width (JSW) after meniscal allograft transplantation; some contributing postoperative factors are known, although preoperative factors remain unclear. This study is the first to analyze the preoperative risk factors for reduced JSW in patients after lateral meniscal allograft transplantation (LMAT). Hypothesis: Poor cartilage status and high preoperative body mass index (BMI) influence the postoperative progression of joint space narrowing. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively studied 79 patients after LMAT who were observed for at least 5 years. JSWs on weightbearing flexion posteroanterior radiographs were measured preoperatively and at the 5-year mark. Differences in JSW were divided into more progression and less progression groups. The modified Outerbridge cartilage grades based on magnetic resonance imaging assessments were compared at subtotal/total meniscectomy and at LMAT to determine the difference between time points. Preoperative between-group differences in sex, age, surgical side, follow-up period, weight, height, BMI, and meniscal deficiency period were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Lysholm score. Data were examined using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. Results: Radiographically, the overall change in JSW from preoperative to follow-up was 0.58 mm (range, –0.23 to 1.83 mm). Reductions in JSW in the more progression and less progression groups were 0.94 ± 0.32 and 0.22 ± 0.21 mm (mean ± SD), respectively. There was no difference in cartilage status between the groups at meniscectomy or LMAT; however, changes between time points were significant on the lateral femoral condyle and lateral tibial plateau. Clinically, there were significant differences in weight, BMI, and meniscal deficiency period between the 2 groups. Postoperative Lysholm scores increased as compared with the preoperative scores, but there was no difference among the postoperative time points. In the univariate logistic regression risk analysis, weight, BMI, meniscal deficiency period, and the difference in cartilage status between time points for the lateral femoral condyle and lateral tibial plateau were identified as significant. In the subsequent multivariate logistic regression, BMI (odds ratio, 1.45; P = .016) and meniscal deficiency period (odds ratio, 1.21; P = .037) were the statistically significant factors. Conclusion: BMI and meniscal deficiency period were preoperative risk factors for JSW narrowing after LMAT. This suggests that the meniscal deficiency period from meniscectomy to LMAT may be shortened and that proper weight management can lead to successful LMAT.

Influence of Varus Alignment on Survivorship After Lateral Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 1374-1378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ju-Ho Song ◽  
Seong-Il Bin ◽  
Jong-Min Kim ◽  
Bum-Sik Lee ◽  
Chang-Rack Lee
Keyword(s):  
Survival Analysis ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Graft Survival ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Lysholm Score ◽  
Varus Alignment ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
And Cartilage

Background: Factors associated with graft survival after lateral meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) have not been fully determined, and survival analysis focused on effect of varus alignment has not been performed. Hypothesis: Varus alignment of the knee leads to better graft survival and clinical outcomes after lateral MAT than normal alignment. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The records of 204 consecutive patients who underwent lateral MAT were reviewed. After exclusion of cases undergoing revision MAT, cases without hip-knee-ankle standing radiographs, and cases with valgus alignment, the patients were categorized into 2 groups, those with normal alignment within −3° to 3° of the mechanical axis and those with varus alignment >3°. Cumulative graft survival rates were compared in the 2 groups before and after controlling for other covariates, including sex, age, body mass index (BMI), time from meniscectomy, the number of accompanying procedures, and cartilage status. Failure was defined as (1) a graft tear involving >50% or unstable peripheral rim of the allograft; (2) a Lysholm score <65 that was not improved afterward; (3) meniscectomy >50% or to the zone of meniscocapsular junction; or (4) conversion to revision MAT, realignment osteotomy, or arthroplasty. Clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups by Lysholm score. Results: Of the 190 patients, 149 showed normal alignment of 0.3° ± 1.3° (range, –3° to 3°) and 41 showed varus alignment of 4.8° ± 0.6° (range, 4°-8°). A total of 22 patients (11.6%) experienced MAT failure: 21 patients with normal alignment and 1 with varus alignment. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a significant difference in the cumulative graft survival rates between the 2 groups (log-rank test, P = .001). After controlling for age, sex, BMI, time from meniscectomy, the number of accompanying procedures, and cartilage status, varus alignment was found to be a significant protective factor ( P = .004). On the other hand, there was no difference in clinical improvement measured by the Lysholm score between the 2 groups ( P = .651). Conclusion: Varus alignment was associated with better graft survival after lateral MAT than normal alignment. However, no significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

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

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

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
George T. Stollsteimer ◽  
Walter R. Shelton ◽  
Andrea Dukes ◽  
Anna Laura Bomboy
Keyword(s):  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document