Lin, Heng An

Background: Meniscal allograft transplant (MAT) is an important treatment option for young patients with deficient menisci; however, there is a lack of consensus on the optimal method of allograft fixation. Hypothesis: The various methods of MAT fixation have measurable and significant differences in outcomes. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A single-arm meta-analysis of studies reporting graft failure, reoperations, and other clinical outcomes after MAT was performed. Studies were stratified by suture-only, bone plug, and bone bridge fixation methods. Proportionate rates of failure and reoperation for each fixation technique were pooled with a mixed-effects model, after which reconstruction of relative risks with confidence intervals was performed using the Katz logarithmic method. Results: A total of 2604 patients underwent MAT. Weighted mean follow-up was 4.3 years (95% CI, 3.2-5.6 years). During this follow-up period, graft failure rates were 6.2% (95% CI, 3.2%-11.6%) for bone plug fixation, 6.9% (95% CI, 4.5%-10.3%) for suture-only fixation, and 9.3% (95% CI, 6.2%-13.9%) for bone bridge fixation. Transplanted menisci secured using bone plugs displayed a lower risk of failure compared with menisci secured via bone bridges (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .02). Risks of failure were not significantly different when comparing suture fixation to bone bridge (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06; P = .12) and bone plugs (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02; P = .64). Allografts secured using bone plugs were at a lower risk of requiring reoperations compared with those secured using sutures (RR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.95; P < .001), whereas allografts secured using bone bridges had a higher risk of reoperation when compared with those secured using either sutures (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19-1.38; P < .001) or bone plugs (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.32-1.51; P < .001). Improvements in Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were comparable among the different groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that bone plug fixation of transplanted meniscal allografts carries a lower risk of failure than the bone bridge method and has a lower risk of requiring subsequent operations than both suture-only and bone bridge methods of fixation. This suggests that the technique used in the fixation of a transplanted meniscal allograft is an important factor in the clinical outcomes of patients receiving MATs.

Purpose The purpose of this review is to perform a meta‐analysis of studies reporting meniscus repair outcomes. Pooled analyses of such studies will provide an accurate estimate of the outcomes that can be expected following meniscal repair at various postoperative time points. Methods A meta‐analysis of meniscal repair failure (defined as persistent symptoms, lack of healing on magnetic resonance imaging or revision surgery) and other clinical outcomes was performed following meniscal repair. Patients included had traumatic, nondegenerative meniscal tears, were skeletally mature, and had specific time‐points after surgery. Repairs included were performed either in isolation, or with concomitant ACL reconstruction. Because of the inherent heterogeneity of single‐arm meta‐analyses, pooled analyses were performed using a random‐effects model. Results Rates of all‐cause meniscal repair failure was pooled to be 12% at 0‐1 years (95% CI: .09‐.16), 15% at 2‐3 years (95% CI: .11‐.20), and 19% at 4‐6 years (95% CI: .13‐.24). Sensitivity analysis for studies performing meniscal repair entirely on patients with concomitant ACL reconstruction (ACLR) showed comparable rates of failure at similar time intervals. Development of osteoarthritis, in patients with knees previously free from articular pathologies, was 4% at 2‐3 years (95% CI: .02‐.07), and 10% at 4‐6 years (95% CI: .03‐.25). Conclusion Meniscus repair for traumatic injuries have an all‐cause failure rate that increases from 12% to 19% through a time period ranging from 1‐6 years following surgery. The failure rates were comparable for patients with meniscal repairs performed with concomitant ACLRs. Level of Evidence IV; Systematic Review of Level II‐IV Studies.