No abstract

Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2 different meniscal scaffolds in treating patients with irreparable partial medial meniscal tear and patients complaining of pain in the medial compartment of the knee due to a previous partial medial meniscectomy. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that both the scaffolds are effective in improving clinical outcomes in these patient populations.Material and Methods:Twenty-eight patients underwent collagen-based medial meniscus implantation (CMI-Menaflex) and 25 with a second-generation scaffold (Actifit). All patients were assessed with Lysholm, Tegner scale, and MRI evaluation—preoperatively, at 6 months, at 12 moths, and followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. Second look arthroscopy and concomitant biopsy were performed in 7 and 12 patients of CMI and Actifit groups, respectively.Results:The CMI group at final follow-up showed improvement in Lysholm score from 58.4 ± 17.3 to 94.5 ± 6.0, while the Actifit group showed improvement from 67.0 ± 15.7 to 90.3 ± 13.1; the improvement was statistically significant in both the groups but intergroup difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.1061). Tegner Activity Scale score improved in both the groups, but intergroup difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.5918). MRI evaluation showed in situ scaffold and no progression of degenerative arthritis in both the groups at final follow-up. Histological evaluation showed more fibrous tissue with blood vessels in the CMI group and the Actift group showed avascular cartilaginous features.Conclusion:Both the scaffolds are effective in improving patients’ symptoms and joint function at short-term follow-up.

The lateral CMI demonstrated that it was safe in this population study, with decreased pain and improved knee function in 96% of patients with excellent/good Lysholm results in 87% of patients at a minimum 2-year follow-up. The MRI scans demonstrated a decreased implant size relative to a normal meniscus.

Background: A biodegradable polyurethane scaffold was developed to treat patients with the challenging clinical condition of painful partial meniscal defects. Hypothesis: The use of an acellular polyurethane scaffold in patients with symptomatic partial meniscal defects would result in both midterm pain relief and improved function. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 155 patients with symptomatic partial meniscal defects (101 medial and 54 lateral) were implanted with a polyurethane scaffold in a prospective, single-arm, multicentric study with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes were measured with the visual analog scale for pain, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation form, Lysholm knee scale, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score at baseline and at 2- and 5-year follow-ups. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to evaluate the knee joint, meniscal implant, and meniscal extrusion. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was also performed. Removal of the scaffold, conversion to a meniscal transplant, and unicompartmental/total knee arthroplasty were used as endpoints. Results: Eighteen patients were lost to follow-up (11.6%). The patients who were included in this study showed significant clinical improvement after surgery as indicated by the different outcome measures ( P = .01). However, the clinical improvement tended to stabilize between 2 and 5 years of follow-up. MRI scans of the scaffolds in 56 patients showed a smaller-sized implant in the majority of the cases when compared with the native meniscus with an irregular surface at the 5-year follow-up. During the follow-up period, 87.6% of the implants survived in this study. At 5 years of follow-up, 87.9% of the medial scaffolds were still functioning versus 86.9% of the lateral scaffolds. In total, 23 treatments had failed: 10 removed scaffolds because of breakage, 7 conversions to meniscal allograft transplantation, 4 conversions to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and 2 conversions to total knee arthroplasty. Conclusion: The polyurethane meniscal implant was able to improve knee joint function and reduce pain in patients with segmental meniscal deficiency over 5 years after implantation. The MRI appearance of this scaffold was different from the original meniscal tissue at the midterm follow-up. The treatment survival rates of 87.9% of the medial scaffolds and 86.9% of the lateral scaffolds in the present study compared favorably with those published concerning meniscal allograft transplantation after total meniscectomy.

Purpose: to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the polyurethane meniscal scaffold through clinical examination, MRI and arthroscopic second look, over a minimum two-year follow-up. Methods: between 2009 and 2011, 19 patients underwent meniscal scaffold implantation in our department (medial meniscus in 16 cases lateral meniscus in two cases, and bilateral in one case). All the patients were clinically evaluated preoperatively, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery using Lysholm score, Tegner score, and VAS. Ten patients were studied with MRI, and nine patients were evaluated arthroscopically. Results: no adverse reactions to the implant were observed. The clinical scores showed a significant improvement at 6 months and increased progressively over time. On MRI studies, the implants showed a clear hyperintense signal, sometimes irregular, and the chondral surface was preserved in all cases. At arthroscopic second look in the first months after surgery, the scaffold size was unchanged and the scaffold appeared light yellowish in color and well integrated into the surrounding tissues. At arthroscopic second look at 12 and 24 months the scaffold was found to have an irregular morphology and to be slightly reduced in size.Conclusions: polyurethane meniscal scaffold is a good alternative to a collagen scaffold, but a longer followup is needed to evaluate the scaffold degradation and chondral coverage. Level of evidence: level IV, therapeutic case series.