|
|
Presentation will discuss meniscus repair versus meniscectomy, emphasizing newer technologies for root repair and other types of tears previously difficult to repair. The presentation will include ample video showing new techniques for repair and augmentation.
|
|
|
i suggested this already for the Lugano meeting which was cancelled cfr the Covid issue. the presentation brings an update on CMI now with 20y clinical results and Actifit 10 y documented clin findings. the indications for meniscal scaffolds are several and solutions do not seem to be accesible ....
|
|
|
Objectives:
The meniscus, a C-shaped cartilaginous structure within the knee joint, is pivotal in maintaining joint function and stability. Its multifaceted functions include load transmission, shock absorption, joint lubrication, anteroposterior joint stability, and proprioception. Traditional treatment has often involved partial meniscectomy and transplantation in response to meniscal injuries, particularly horizontal cleavage tears (HCT), which account for about 32% of meniscal tears. This approach has been favored for its perceived benefits, enabling swift recovery and the resumption of sports activities. However, the long-term consequences of partial meniscectomy, tied to biomechanical disruptions caused by essential meniscal tissue loss, further complicate matters. Meniscal transplant presents the potential for restoring critical meniscal functions while minimizing the adverse outcomes linked to partial meniscectomy, such as an increased risk of arthritis. Our research aims to comprehensively investigate the biomechanical implications of meniscal transplants compared to partial meniscectomy, intact menisci and those affected by HCT. We assessed contact areas and pressures within the knee joint using a human model to show how these surgical interventions affect joint mechanics.
Methods:
The study involved 7 fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees, from which muscular structures and extensor mechanisms were removed while keeping ligaments intact. To access the tibiofemoral joint, a femoral condyle osteotomy was performed. Pressure-mapping sensors (Tekscan) were placed through a sub-meniscal arthrotomy. Each knee underwent testing at full extension under four conditions (Fig 1): i) intact medial meniscus, ii) 2cm posteromedial horizontal cleavage tear of medial meniscus, iii) partial meniscectomy, and iv) partial medial meniscus transplantation using an allograft tailored to fit the prepared defect. Using a uniaxial load frame (MTS 30/G machine) (Fig 2), tibiofemoral contact pressure and contact area were measured in the medial and lateral compartments at 800 N of axial load, with triplicate measurements for each condition.
Results: The experimental results showed distinctive contact pressure patterns (Fig. 3). The intact meniscus displayed a medial peak contact pressure of 2.45±0.41 MPa, while the partial tear showed 2.45±0.52 MPa, meniscectomy exhibited 2.74±0.54 MPa, and transplant demonstrated 2.54±0.15 MPa. On the lateral side, the intact meniscus registered a contact pressure of 2.73±0.16 MPa; the partial tear revealed a higher pressure of 2.61±0.27 MPa, with meniscectomy yielding 2.83±0.31 MPa, and the transplant showing 2.61±0.25 MPa. Notably, statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between each group regarding medial and lateral contact pressures (p < 0.05). However, there was an 11.42% increase in pressure observed between the intact and meniscectomy groups. In comparison, there was a 3.67% decrease, indicating a reduction in contact pressure by up to 7.2% compared to the meniscectomy group. The study also focused on contact areas, revealing medial compartment values of 477.93 mm², 383.29 mm², and 394.08 mm² for partial tear, partial meniscectomy, and partial meniscus transplant conditions. Statistically significant differences emerged between tear and meniscectomy (p = 0.005) and tear and transplant conditions (p = 0.008), but not between meniscectomy and transplant (p = 0.582).
Conclusions: The findings hold important clinical implications. Partial meniscal transplantation showed comparable contact areas to partial meniscectomy in full extension. Notably, partial transplantation outperformed meniscectomy across all knees and axial loads by restoring and increasing the contact area. This supports the idea that partial transplantation could be a non-inferior alternative for repairing horizontal cleavage tears. However, it's essential to acknowledge that contact pressure for the partial tear has some limitations, as horizontal cleavage tears are inherently more sensitive and prone to flapping against shear forces rather than compression, which may affect the accuracy of our pressure measurements. These results underscore the potential of partial meniscal transplantation as a viable treatment option. However, further enhancements to surgical procedures, graft shaping, and suturing techniques could impact its outcomes due to its novelty. Continued refinements in this operative approach may improve effectiveness in addressing meniscal tears and enhancing patient outcomes.
|
|
|
Biomechanical and surgical technique evaluating the use of soft anchor fixation for radial lateral meniscus and medial root repairs. Both cadaveric testing and surgical technique will be presented.
|
|
|
Meniscal tears are one of the most common knee injuries. Symptomatic tears are routinely treated by meniscectomies, which can lead to knee osteoarthritis, or by meniscal repairs that preserve the meniscus but potentially increase reoperation risk. An all-inside meniscus repair utilizes implants to fixate the meniscus at a higher cost than traditional inside out or outside in suturing technique. The success rate of these meniscal implants, however, is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of implants successfully deployed during arthroscopic all-inside repair.
Methods
A data query of meniscus repair (CPT codes: 29882 and 29883) procedures was performed at a single institution. The query was limited to include procedures performed between June 1, 2020 and June 1, 2023. Multiple different manufacturer implants were used by 5 sports medicine fellowship trained orthopaedic surgeons. The number of implants successfully used and number of implants wasted due to intra-operative failure during meniscal repair were found on EPIC and documented for each procedure. Success rate of meniscal implants was determined by dividing the number of implants wasted by the total amount of implants used.
Results
The query identified 1026 patients that underwent meniscus repair. From this cohort, 3,867 total meniscal implants for an average of 3.77 implants per case. Overall, all inside meniscus repair was found to have a low implant failure or waste rate (1.03% [n = 40]). The highest failure rates were found with JuggerStitchTM Curved (9.38%), NOVOSTITCHTM Cartridge 0 Suture (2.44%), and TRUESPANTM 12 Degrees (2.11%) implants.
Conclusions
The most important finding was that the overall failure rate of meniscal implants is low. Implants with higher waste rates should be addressed by industry and considered by surgeons when selecting surgical implants. These preliminary findings establish the necessity to further examine implant failure rate and associated costs of meniscus repair.
|