Medial Meniscus Scaffold Implantation in Combination with Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate Injection: Minimum 3-Year Follow-up

Akkaya, Mustafa; Şimşek, Mehmet Emin; Gürsoy, Safa; Çay, Nurdan; Bozkurt, Murat

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1701452

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three articles were further excluded being series of previously published data and two being case reports [44, 46, 47, 49, 57]. Thus, a total of 37 studies [2, 3, 5–14, 16, 20–23, 25, 30, 33, 36, 37, 39–42, 45, 48, 51–53, 55, 56, 59, 61–63] were finally included in the quantitative and qualitative analysis (a detailed study description is reported in Table 1). Seven of them were comparative studies: 2 randomized controlled trials and 5 prospective comparative studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

No differences in clinical outcome between CMI and Actifit meniscal scaffolds: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reale

Previtali

Andriolo

et al. 2021

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the results of two meniscal scaffolds, CMI and Actifit, for the treatment of partial meniscal lesions. MethodsA systematic review was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in January 2021, including randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective observational studies on the clinical results of meniscal scaffolds. A meta‐analysis of the clinical results was performed; the rate of failures was recorded, as well as radiological results. The quality of the included studies was assessed with a modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS). ResultsThe search identified 37 studies (31 in the last 10 years): 2 RCTs, 5 comparative studies, 26 prospective and 4 retrospective series on a total of 1276 patients (472 CMI, 804 Actifit). The quality of evidence was generally low. An overall significant improvement in all clinical scores was documented for both scaffolds. The meta‐analysis showed no differences between the two scaffolds in terms of patient reported outcome measures and activity level. The meta‐analysis on the risk of failures documented a risk of failures of 7% in the CMI and of 9% in the Actifit group. ConclusionsThere is a growing interest on the results of meniscal scaffolds, with most studies published recently. However, long‐term data on the Actifit scaffold and high‐level comparative studies are missing. Both CMI and Actifit offered good clinical results with a significant and comparable improvement in symptoms and function, and with a low number of failures over time. Accordingly, with the proper indication, their use may be encouraged in the clinical practice. Level of evidenceLevel IV.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

No differences in clinical outcome between CMI and Actifit meniscal scaffolds: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reale

Previtali

Andriolo

et al. 2021

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among them, 6 cases were on the lateral side of the right knee. 3 Data accounts for 75% of damage. Meniscus damage is 1-3 years old.…”

Section: Methods Research Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meniscus Injuries Under High-Intensity Training in Cycling Athletes

Zhang

2023

Rev Bras Med Esporte

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Due to the high intensity and speed of cycling, a high technical and tactical level, physical quality, and psychological quality are required of athletes. Meniscal injuries are common in cyclists. In particular, chronic meniscal injuries are usually caused by an accumulation of fatigue or untimely and incomplete treatment of acute sports injuries. Objective: Analyze the protective factors and methods for meniscal injuries in cyclists. Methods: Volunteer male cyclists were selected for a questionnaire that investigated the athletes’ meniscal injuries. The data collected were statistically analyzed. Results: There were 6 cases of right knee meniscus injury in athletes; these data accounted for 75% of the injuries. Left meniscus injuries accounted for 2 cases. There was one case of medial injury in both knees. The corresponding preventive measures are presented according to the cause of the injury. Conclusion: Causes of meniscal injuries in cyclists include insufficient knee strength, inadequate training methods, physical fatigue, and long-term localized effort. Level of evidence II; Therapeutic studies - investigation of treatment outcomes.

show abstract

“…35 In addition, intraarticular and in situ concentrated bone marrow aspirate injection in combination with medial meniscus scaffold implantation demonstrated clinical improvement in all functions and pain scores. 36 Another unique, synthetic meniscus arthroplasty is the NUsurface Meniscus Implant.…”

Section: Table 1 International Meniscus Reconstruction Experts Forum ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meniscal Salvage: Where We Are Today

Anderson

Gaston

LeClere

et al. 2021

J Am Acad Orthop Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The menisci are fibrocartilaginous semilunar structures in the knee that provide load support. Injury to the meniscus alters its load sharing and biomechanical profile. Knee arthroscopy with meniscus débridement is the most common orthopaedic surgical procedure done in the United States. The current goals of meniscal surgery are to preserve native meniscal tissue and maintain structural integrity. Meniscal preservation is critical to maintain the normal mechanics and homeostasis of the knee; however, it is not always feasible because of the structure's poor blood supply and often requires removal of irreparable tissue with meniscectomy. Efforts have increasingly focused on the promotion of meniscal healing and the replacement of damaged menisci with allografts, scaffolds, meniscal implants, or substitutes. The purpose of this article was to review current and future meniscal salvage treatments such as meniscus transplant, synthetic arthroplasty, and possible bioprinted meniscus to allow patients to maintain quality of life, limit pain, and delay osteoarthritis.

show abstract

Medial Meniscus Scaffold Implantation in Combination with Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate Injection: Minimum 3-Year Follow-up

Cited by 13 publications

References 42 publications

No differences in clinical outcome between CMI and Actifit meniscal scaffolds: a systematic review and meta-analysis

No differences in clinical outcome between CMI and Actifit meniscal scaffolds: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Meniscus Injuries Under High-Intensity Training in Cycling Athletes

Meniscal Salvage: Where We Are Today

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About