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.
Background: Osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) is a successful knee joint preservation technique; however, the effects of defect size and defect size:condyle ratio (DSCR) are poorly understood. Purpose: To quantify clinical outcomes of isolated OCA of the knee based on defect size and DSCR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data from patients who underwent OCA of the knee without major concomitant procedures by a single surgeon were analyzed at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Osteochondral defect size was measured intraoperatively, and femoral condyle size was measured with preoperative imaging. Patient-reported outcomes, reoperations, and survival rates were analyzed per defect size and DSCR, comparing males and females and patients <40 and ≥40 years old. Results: Sixty-eight patients were included, of whom 57% were male (mean ± SD: age, 34.5 ± 10.3 years; follow-up, 5.2 ± 2.6 years). Mean osteochondral defect size and DSCR were 3.48 ± 1.72 cm2 and 0.2 ± 0.1, respectively. Defect size was larger among males as compared with females (3.97 ± 1.71 cm2 vs 2.81 ± 1.16 cm2, P = .005), while DSCRs were not significantly different between sexes ( P = .609). The cohort as a whole demonstrated improvements in the following scores: Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical ( P < .05). There were 27 reoperations (39.7%) at a mean of 2.5 ± 1.92 years and 8 failures (11.8%) at a mean of 2.62 ± 1.3 years. Mean DCSR was higher among patients with graft failure (0.26 ± 0.20 vs 0.19 ± 0.07, P = .049). After stratification by age, failures among patients ≥40 years old were associated with a larger defect size (mean 5.37 ± 3.50 cm2 vs 3.22 ± 1.32 cm2, P = .03) and higher DSCR (mean 0.30 ± 0.25 vs 0.19 ± 0.06, P = .05) when compared with nonfailures. Failures among patients <40 years old were not significantly associated with defect size or DSCR ( P > .05) as compared with nonfailures. Conclusion: Patients undergoing isolated OCA transplantation demonstrated significant clinical improvements and a graft survival of 88.2% at 5.2 years. Failures overall were associated with a larger DSCR, and failures among patients ≥40 years old with a larger DSCR and larger defect size. Increasing defect size among males was positively correlated with some improved outcomes, although this was not maintained in analysis of the DSCR, suggesting similar prognosis after OCA regardless of sex. Clinical Relevance: Failed osteochondral allografts are associated with larger defect sizes and defect:condyle ratios in this study, providing additional information to surgeons for appropriate patient consultation.
Patients who underwent unicondylar, multiplug OCA using the snowman technique demonstrated inferior clinical outcomes, higher reoperation rates, and greater failure rates than those who underwent isolated single-graft transplantation. By contrast, multifocal OCA may be a viable knee preservation technique for young, active patients with multicompartmental chondral disease, leading to improved clinical outcomes and low reoperation and failure rates at midterm follow-up.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.