The menisci and articular cartilage of the knee have a close embryological, anatomical and functional relationship, which explains why often a pathology of one also affects the other. Traumatic meniscus tears should be repaired, when possible, to protect the articular cartilage. Traumatic articular cartilage lesions can be treated with success using biological treatment options such as microfracture or microdrilling, autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT), or osteochondral transplantation (OCT) depending on the depth and area of the lesion. Degenerative cartilage and meniscus lesions often occur together, and osteoarthritis is already present or impending. Most degenerative meniscus lesions should be treated first conservatively and, after failed conservative treatment, should undergo arthroscopic partial meniscus resection. Degenerative cartilage lesions should also be treated conservatively initially and then surgically; thereby treating the cartilage defect itself and also maintaining the axis of the leg if necessary. Tears of the meniscus roots are devastating injuries to the knee and should be repaired e.g. by transtibial re-fixation. The clinical role of ‘ramp’ lesions of the meniscus is still under investigation. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:652-662. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200016

Purpose The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the clinical and functional knee outcomes after Verasense sensor-assisted total knee arthroplasty (VA TKA), and to compare these outcomes, where possible, with those from manually balanced total knee arthroplasty (MB TKA). Methods A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline and Scopus from the beginning of January 2012 until the end of June 2022, to identify potentially relevant articles for this review. Selection was based on the following inclusion criteria: full text English- or German-language clinical studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, which assessed clinical and functional outcomes following VA TKA. Not original research, preprints, abstract-only papers, protocols, reviews, expert opinion papers, book chapters, surgical technique papers, and studies pertaining only to unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) or patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) were excluded. Several scores (Knee Society Score [KSS], Oxford Knee Score [OKS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 subscales [KOOS4] and Physical Function—Computerised Adaptive Testing [PF˗CAT]), alongside postoperative measurements of range of motion [ROM], reoperation rates and the rate of manipulation under anaesthesia [MUA]) were used to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes. The quality of included papers, except randomised control trials (RCTs), was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS). For the assessment of included RCTs, the Jadad Scale was used. Results The literature search identified 243 articles. After removing duplicates, 184 papers were included in the initial screening process. Fourteen of them met all the inclusion criteria following the selection process. Mean MINORS for non-comparative studies value was 11.5 (11–12), and for comparative studies 18.2 (13–21). Mean Jadad Scale score was 3.6 (2–5). Outcomes from a total number of 3633 patients were evaluated (mean age at surgery 68.5 years [32–88 years]). In terms of clinical outcomes, the overwhelming majority of studies observed an improvement after VA TKA, but no statistically significant difference in ROM and reoperation rate when compared to MB TKA. On the other hand, lower rates of MUA have been described in the VA TKA group. An increase in postoperative clinical and functional scores values, when compared to the preoperative ones, has been reported in both groups, although no statistically significant difference between them has been observed. Conclusion The use of Verasense pressure sensors in TKA leads to no significant improvement in ROM, reoperation rate or functional outcomes, when compared to the standard manually balancing technique. However, lower rates of MUA have been described in the VA TKA group. These findings highlight the importance of tools being able to measure ligament stresses or joint pressure for achieving an optimally balanced knee. Level of evidence III.

Purpose The aim of this study was to report the clinical and functional outcomes, complication rates, implant survivorship and the progression of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA), after new inlay or onlay patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), for isolated patellofemoral OA. Comparison of different implant types and models, where it was possible, also represented one of the objectives. Methods A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane databases, to identify possible relevant studies, published from the inception of these databases until 11.11.2022. Randomized control trials (RCTs), case series, case control studies and cohort studies, written in English or German, and published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010, were included. Not original studies, case reports, simulation studies, systematic reviews, or studies that included patients who underwent TKA or unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) of the medial or lateral compartment of the knee, were excluded. Additionally, only articles that assessed functional and/or clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), radiographic progression of OA, complication rates, implant survival rates, pain, as well as conversion to TKA rates in patients treated with PFA, using inlay or onlay trochlea designs, were included. For quality assessment, the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for non-comparative and comparative clinical intervention studies was used. Results The literature search identified 404 articles. 29 of them met all the inclusion criteria following the selection process. Median MINORS for non-comparative studies value was 12.5 (range 11–14), and for comparative studies 20.1 (range 17–24). In terms of clinical and functional outcomes, no difference between onlay and inlay PFA has been described. Both designs yielded satisfactory results at short, medium and long-term follow-ups. Both designs improved pain postoperatively and no difference between them in terms of postoperative VAS has been noted, although the onlay groups presented a higher preoperative VAS. When comparing the inlay to onlay trochlea designs, the inlay group displayed a lower progression of OA rate. Conclusion There is no difference in functional or clinical outcomes after PFA between the new inlay and the onlay designs, with both presenting an improvement in most of the scores that were used. A higher rate of OA progression was observed in the onlay design group. Level of evidence III.