scholarly journals Time to Achieving Clinically Significant Outcomes after Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7_suppl4) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0020
Author(s):  
Hailey Huddleston ◽  
Nabil Mehta ◽  
Evan Polce ◽  
Ron Gilat ◽  
Mohamad Alzein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interval Censoring ◽  
Worker's Compensation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Worker’S Compensation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Chondral Defects ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Compensation Status ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objectives: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is a surgical treatment option for patients with meniscus deficiencies. Prior studies have defined clinically significant outcomes such as minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for commonly administered patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after MAT. The purpose of this study was to determine the time to achieving MCID and PASS and to identify any risk factors affecting achievement in patients undergoing MAT. Methods: A prospectively maintained MAT registry was retrospectively reviewed from April 2014-May 2020. Patients who underwent revision MAT or did not complete preoperative PROMs were excluded. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were administered preoperatively and at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years postoperatively. Previously defined MCID and PASS thresholds were utilized and Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis with interval censoring was used to calculate the cumulative percentages of MCID, and PASS achievement at each follow-up time interval (5-7, 11-13, and 23-25 months). Results: Eighty-four patients (mean age: 28.2±9.7) were included. Time to MCID and PASS is presented in Table 1. Previously reported PASS values for KOOS Pain, Symptoms, and Sport did not reach an AUC>0.70 and thus were not included in analysis. Worker’s compensation status was found to delay time to achieving MCID for all PROs (HR=0.238-0.305, P=0.008-0.020) and PASS for KOOS Symptoms (HR=0.171, P = 0.026) and IKDC (HR=1.88, P<0.001) (Table 2 and 3). Higher preoperative PRO score was associated with mildly delaying the time to achieving MCID for all PROs (HR=0.947-0.970, P<0.001), while higher preoperative PRO scores were associated with shorter time to achieving PASS on KOOS Symptoms and KOOS QOL (HR=1.030-1.043, P=0.001). Greater BMI (HR=0.946, P=0.020) and the number of focal chondral defects (HR=0.083-0.255, P=0.007-0.029) was associated with delayed MCID for KOOS ADL and QOL, respectively, while concomitant realignment surgery decreased time to MCID on KOOS Sports (HR=2.542, P=0.008). Conclusions: This study defined the time to achieving MCID and PASS on IKDC and KOOS subscores for patients undergoing MAT. Worker’s compensation status, BMI, and the presence of focal chondral defects may prolong time to achievement of MCID and PASS after MAT. [Table: see text][Table: see text][Table: see text]

scholarly journals Establishing Clinically Significant Outcomes After Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 232596711881846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph N. Liu ◽  
Anirudh K. Gowd ◽  
Michael L. Redondo ◽  
David R. Christian ◽  
Brandon C. Cabarcas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Lysholm Score ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Clinically Significant

Background: Traditionally, the primary outcome in meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been long-term survivorship; however, short-term clinically significant outcomes are necessary to fully evaluate patient improvement after surgery. Purpose: To (1) establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and (2) evaluate preoperative and intraoperative variables correlated with achieving these threshold values. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A prospectively maintained institutional registry was queried for all MATs performed between 1999 and 2017. The following PROM scores were collected: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Patients who completed preoperative and postoperative PROMs within a 1-month window were included to calculate the distribution-based MCID at this interval. An anchor question regarding satisfaction with surgery was asked at the same time point and was employed to determine the PASS using nonparametric receiver operating characteristic curve/area under the curve analysis. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to correlate patient demographics, medical history, and concomitant procedures to propensity in achieving the MCID and PASS. Results: A total of 98 patients who underwent MAT met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, of whom 10 underwent concomitant ligamentous procedures, 65 underwent concomitant cartilage procedures, and 7 underwent concomitant realignment procedures. The mean patient age was 29.4 ± 9.0 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.8 ± 5.2 kg/m2. The distribution-based MCID and PASS were determined for the Lysholm score (12.3 and 66.5) and IKDC (9.9 and 36.0) as well as the KOOS Pain (9.9 and N/A ), Symptoms (9.7 and 73.0), Activities of Daily Living (9.5 and N/A), Sport (13.3 and N/A), and Quality of Life (14.6 and 53.0) subscales, respectively. A preoperative Short Form Physical Component Summary (SF PCS) score greater than 32.0 was predictive of postoperative satisfaction. Patients with work-related claims had a reduced likelihood of achieving the MCID for the IKDC and the PASS for the KOOS Symptoms. An increased BMI was also associated with failing to achieve the PASS for the KOOS Quality of Life (QOL). Conclusion: This study established the MCID and PASS for the Lysholm score, IKDC, and KOOS in patients undergoing MAT. Workers’ compensation and higher BMI were associated with failing to achieve clinically significant values. Lower preoperative Lysholm, IKDC, and KOOS scores were predictive of achieving the MCID, while higher preoperative SF PCS scores were associated with achieving satisfaction after MAT.

Predictors of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Outcome: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Fanelli ◽  
Michele Mercurio ◽  
Giorgio Gasparini ◽  
Olimpio Galasso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Normal Weight ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported

AbstractThis systematic review investigates factors associated with outcomes after meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register databases were used to search relevant articles in April 2018. Studies that evaluated at least one association between a factor and outcomes were extracted. Of 3,381 titles, 52 studies were finally analyzed. Data about predictors, patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs), and failure rates were extracted for quantitative and qualitative analysis. A total of 3,382 patients and 3,460 transplants were identified. Thirty different predictors were reported in the current MAT literature, 18 of which by at least two studies. Subgroup analysis showed that lateral MAT had higher postoperative values than medial MAT in Lysholm's (p = 0.0102) and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC; p = 0.0056) scores. Soft tissue fixation showed higher postoperative IKDC scores than bone fixation (p = 0.0008). Fresh frozen allografts had higher Lysholm's scores (p < 0.0001) and showed significantly lower failure rates (p < 0.0001) than cryopreserved allografts. Age (p < 0.015, β = 0.80), sex (p < 0.034, β  =  − 8.52), and body mass index (BMI; p < 0.014, β = −4.87) demonstrated an association with PROMs in the regression model. Qualitative analysis found moderate evidence that a higher number of previous procedures in the same knee are an independent predictor of transplant failure. Conflicting evidence was found with regard to chondral damage, time from meniscectomy, smoke, sport level, worker's compensation status, and preoperative Lysholm's score as predictors of outcomes. Our review suggests that the ideal candidate to undergo MAT may be a young male of normal weight with no previous knee surgeries, treated with a lateral isolated procedure. However, MAT is associated with good outcomes in the majority of patients with many of the PROMs requiring further study to determine their direct effects on long-term outcomes. This study is a systematic review and reflects level of evidence IV.

scholarly journals Patient Satisfaction and Return to Sports after Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0025
Author(s):  
Gregory Louis Cvetanovich ◽  
David R. Christian ◽  
Grant Hoerig Garcia ◽  
Joseph N. Liu ◽  
Michael L. Redondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Return To Sport ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Weight Lifting ◽  
Return To Sports ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Sporting Activities

Objectives: To investigate the ability of patients to return to sport following arthroscopic meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). Methods: Patients undergoing arthroscopic MAT between 2013 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients completed an outcome survey regarding return to sports in addition to patient reported outcome measures. Subsequent surgery and failure (total meniscectomy, revision MAT, or total or partial knee arthroplasty) were also evaluated. Results: Of 117 MAT performed, 87 patients (74.4%) were available at average 3.6 year follow-up. The average age at time of surgery was 29.0+/-8.3. All 84 patients underwent prior ipsilateral knee surgery with an average of 3.5+/-2.1 prior procedures. MAT was lateral in 44 cases (50.6%), medial in 42 cases (48.3%), and combined medial and lateral in one case (1.1%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 72 patients (82.7%) including cartilage restoration (65, 74.7%), realignment (9, 10.3%), and ACL reconstruction (9, 10.3%). Patients experienced significant improvement compared to preoperative Lysholm, IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and SF-12 physical scores (p < 0.001). Within three years prior to MAT, 82 patients (94.3%) reported participation in sporting activities. Due to knee symptoms, 62 patients (75.6%) discontinued at least one sport prior to MAT. Of the 82 patients participating in sports preoperatively, 62 patients (75.6%) returned to at least one sport at an average of 12.3 months after MAT. Rates of return to specific sports were highest for light weight lifting, yoga, swimming, and cycling and all RTS rates are shown in Table 1. The percentage of patients participating in sports above the recreational level declined significantly (46.0% prior to symptoms versus 8.2% after MAT, p < 0.001). The most common reasons for decreasing level of sport postoperatively were: to prevent further damage (73.6%), pain or swelling with sports (51.4%), fear of further injury (48.6%), surgeon recommendation (33.3%), and decision to pursue other activities (11.1%). Patients reported being satisfied with their ability to participate in sports at a rate of 63.2%, and 78.8% reported they would still undergo MAT with the benefit of hindsight. Reoperation was performed in 26 patients (29.9%) with 12 patients experiencing failure (13.7%; 1 TKA, 2 UKA, 9 total meniscectomy). Conclusion: In a complex patient population undergoing arthroscopic MAT, 75.6% of patients were able to return to at least one sport at an average of 12.3 months postoperatively. Level of sport declined compared to baseline, with most patients restricting involvement to recreational sports after MAT. The most common reasons for decreasing level of sport were: to prevent further damage, pain or swelling with sports, and fear of further injury. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals The Results of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Surgery: What is Success?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Kelvin Christopher Searle ◽  
Vipin Asopa ◽  
Simon Coleman ◽  
Ian McDermott
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Surgical Failure

Abstract Background : Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) may improve symptoms and function, and limit premature knee degeneration in patients under 50 years with symptomatic meniscal loss. The aim of this retrospective study was to examine patient outcomes after MAT and to explore the potential definitions of ‘success' or ‘failure’. Methods : 60 patients who underwent MAT between 2008-2014, aged 18-50 were identified. Six validated outcome measures for knee pathologies, patient satisfaction and return to sport were incorporated into a questionnaire. Surgical failure (removal of most/all the graft, revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty), clinical failure (Lysholm <65), complication rates (surgical failure plus repeat arthroscopy for secondary allograft tears) and whether patients would have the procedure again were recorded. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, with patient-reported outcome measures reported as median and range. A binomial logistic regression was performed to assess factors contributing to failure. Results : 43 patients (72%) responded, mean age 35.6 (±7.5). 72% required concomitant procedures, and 44% had Outerbridge III or IV chondral damage. The complication rate was 21% (9). At mean follow-up of 3 (±1.9) years, 9% (4) were surgical failures and 21% (9) were clinical failures. Half of those patients considered a failure stated they would undergo MAT again. In the 74% (32) reporting they would undergo MAT again, median KOOS, IKDC and Lysholm scores were 82.1, 62.1 and 88, compared to 62.2, 48.5 and 64 in patients who said they would not. None of the risk factors significantly contributed to surgical or clinical failure, although female gender and number of concomitant procedures were nearly significant. Following MAT, 40% were dissatisfied with type/level of sport achieved, but only 14% would not consider MAT again. Conclusions: None of the risk factors examined were linked to surgical or clinical failure. Whilst less favourable outcomes are seen with Outerbridge Grade IV, these patients should not be excluded from potential MAT. Inability to return to sport is not associated with failure since 73% of these patients would undergo MAT again. The disparity between ‘clinical failure’ and ‘surgical failure’ means these terms may need re-defining using a bespoke MAT scoring system.

scholarly journals The Influence of Preoperative Full-Thickness Chondral Defects on Outcomes Following Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (7_suppl6) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0034
Author(s):  
Bryan M. Saltzman ◽  
Maximilian A. Meyer ◽  
Timothy Sean Leroux ◽  
Matthew E. Gitelis ◽  
Margaret Debot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Full Thickness ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Chondral Defects ◽  
Meniscal Allograft

scholarly journals Meniscal allograft transplantation in The Netherlands: long-term survival, patient-reported outcomes, and their association with preoperative complaints and interventions

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 3551-3560
Author(s):  
Robert J. P. van der Wal ◽  
Marc J. Nieuwenhuijse ◽  
Reinier W. A. Spek ◽  
Bregje J. W. Thomassen ◽  
Ewoud R. A. van Arkel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Allograft Survival ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Preoperative Patient

Abstract Purpose Evaluation of survival of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO), and their association with prior interventions of the knee. Methods A prospective consecutive study of 109 consecutive patients who had an arthroscopic meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) between 1999 and 2017 by a single surgeon. Patients were assessed with KOOS scores, preoperative and after a minimal follow-up of 2 years. Furthermore, two anchor questions (whether expectations were met and overall satisfaction, on a five-point Likert scale) were asked. Additionally, prior interventions to MAT were evaluated. Results Prior to MAT, patients had undergone an average of 2.8 (range 1–14) of surgical procedures of the knee. Overall, mean allograft survival was 16.1 years (95% CI 14.8–17.5 years). Higher age at surgery was associated with lower MAT survival: hazard ratio for MAT failure was 1.19 per year increase (95% CI 1.04 to 1.36, p = 0.009). At 4.5 years (IQR, 2–9) of follow-up, all KOOS score were still improved compared to baseline. Age below 35 years, simultaneous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and number of knee surgeries before MAT were associated with lower KOOS scores. Overall patient expectations and overall satisfaction after MAT were not associated with preoperative patient characteristics nor with the number or kind of preoperative interventions. Conclusion Meniscal allograft transplantation has a good overall survival with a clinically relevant improvement. Both meniscal allograft survival and PRO were associated with age. PRO was lower in patients younger than 35 years at time of MAT and meniscal allograft survival was worse in patients older than 50 years. PRO was associated with preoperative patient characteristics and number of surgical procedures prior to MAT. All patients reported improved postoperative satisfaction and met expectations after MAT, both independent of the preoperative history of knee interventions. Level of evidence Level III. Trial registration Medical ethical review board (METC) number: 17–104 (7 August 2017). Dutch Trial Register (NTR) number: NTR6630 (4 July 2017).

A pilot randomized trial of meniscal allograft transplantation versus personalized physiotherapy for patients with a symptomatic meniscal deficient knee compartment

2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (1) ◽  
pp. 56-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. A. Smith ◽  
N. Parsons ◽  
D. Wright ◽  
C. Hutchinson ◽  
A. Metcalfe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Deficient Knee

Aims Meniscal allograft transplantation is undertaken to improve pain and function in patients with a symptomatic meniscal deficient knee compartment. While case series have shown improvements in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), its efficacy has not been rigorously evaluated. This study aimed to compare PROMs in patients having meniscal transplantation with those having personalized physiotherapy at 12 months. Patients and Methods A single-centre assessor-blinded, comprehensive cohort study, incorporating a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed on patients with a symptomatic compartment of the knee in which a (sub)total meniscectomy had previously been performed. They were randomized to be treated either with a meniscal allograft transplantation or personalized physiotherapy, and stratified for malalignment of the limb. They entered the preference groups if they were not willing to be randomized. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Lysholm score and complications were collected at baseline and at four, eight and 12 months following the interventions. Results A total of 36 patients entered the study; 21 were randomized and 15 chose their treatments. Their mean age was 28 years (range 17 to 46). The outcomes were similar in the randomized and preference groups, allowing pooling of data. At 12 months, the KOOS4 composite score (mean difference 12, p = 0.03) and KOOS subscales of pain (mean difference 15, p = 0.02) and activities of daily living (mean difference 18, p = 0.005) were significantly superior in the meniscal transplantation group. Other PROMs also favoured this group without reaching statistical significance. There were five complications in the meniscal transplantation and one in the physiotherapy groups. Conclusion This is the first study to compare meniscal allograft transplantation to non-operative treatment. The results provide the best quality evidence to date of the symptomatic benefits of meniscal allograft transplantation in the short term, but a multicentre RCT is required to investigate this question further. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:56–63.

scholarly journals The Results of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Surgery: What is Success?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Kelvin Christopher Searle ◽  
Vipin Asopa ◽  
Simon Coleman ◽  
Ian McDermott
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Meniscal Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Allograft Transplantation ◽  
Meniscal Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Surgical Failure

Abstract Background : Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) may improve symptoms and function, and limit premature knee degeneration in patients under 50 years with symptomatic meniscal loss. The aim of this retrospective study was to examine patient outcomes after MAT and to explore the potential definitions of ‘success' or ‘failure’. Methods : 60 patients who underwent MAT between 2008-2014, aged 18-50 were identified. Six validated outcome measures for knee pathologies, patient satisfaction and return to sport were incorporated into a questionnaire. Surgical failure (removal of most/all the graft, revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty), clinical failure (Lysholm <65), complication rates (surgical failure plus repeat arthroscopy for secondary allograft tears) and whether patients would have the procedure again were recorded. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, with patient-reported outcome measures reported as median and range. A binomial logistic regression was performed to assess factors contributing to failure. Results : 43 patients (72%) responded, mean age 35.6 (±7.5). 72% required concomitant procedures, and 44% had Outerbridge III or IV chondral damage. The complication rate was 21% (9). At mean follow-up of 3 (±1.9) years, 9% (4) were surgical failures and 21% (9) were clinical failures. Half of those patients considered a failure stated they would undergo MAT again. In the 74% (32) reporting they would undergo MAT again, median KOOS, IKDC and Lysholm scores were 82.1, 62.1 and 88, compared to 62.2, 48.5 and 64 in patients who said they would not. None of the risk factors significantly contributed to surgical or clinical failure, although female gender and number of concomitant procedures were nearly significant. Following MAT, 40% were dissatisfied with type/level of sport achieved, but only 14% would not consider MAT again. Conclusions: None of the risk factors examined were linked to surgical or clinical failure. Whilst less favourable outcomes are seen with Outerbridge Grade IV, these patients should not be excluded from potential MAT. Inability to return to sport is not associated with failure since 73% of these patients would undergo MAT again. The disparity between ‘clinical failure’ and ‘surgical failure’ means these terms may need re-defining using a bespoke MAT scoring system.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document