Gilat, Ron

Purpose To establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process about ethics, transparency, regulation, and best practices for the use of orthobiologics in clinical practice for musculoskeletal pathology. Methods A consensus process on the regulation of orthobiologics at the provider level was conducted using a modified Delphi technique. Twenty orthopaedic surgeons, sports medicine physicians, or basic scientists participated. Each participant was a Biologic Association member organization representative and asked to participate because of their active interest in the field of orthobiologics. Levels of consensus were delineated according to the number of votes for each statement: no consensus, <80%; consensus, 80% to 89%; strong consensus, 90% to 99%; unanimous, 100%. Results The 26 consensus statements on orthobiologics resulted in 14 achieving unanimous consensus, 8 achieving strong consensus, 3 achieving consensus, and 1 did not achieve consensus. Overall, 85% of the statements reached either a unanimous or strong consensus. Of the statements regarding communication and transparency, 9 reached unanimous consensus, including information to convey and helpful tools to describe current orthobiologics, persistent misinformation, use of the word “stem cells,” “off‐label” use, and problems with the present regulatory environment. Five statements discussing the regulation of novel orthobiologics achieved unanimous consensus. These statements highlighted research regulation, safety, and suggested improvements to regulatory issues. The statement that did not achieve any consensus was on the regulatory processes that should be in place by an institution providing novel orthobiologic treatments. No statement reached a unanimous agreement on cost or ethical considerations. Conclusions This study successfully identified key consensus statements emphasizing the importance of ethics, transparency, and regulation in the use of orthobiologics, with 85% of statements reaching unanimous or strong consensus. These findings underscore the need for standardized communication, improved regulatory frameworks, and enhanced safety measures while highlighting persistent challenges in addressing cost and ethical considerations. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

Background: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been shown to provide clinical benefits in patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency in the short term and midterm. There is, however, a paucity of data regarding long-term outcomes after MAT using fresh-frozen allografts and the bridge-in-slot technique. Purpose: To report clinical outcomes and revision rates after primary MAT with fresh-frozen allografts and the bridge-in-slot technique in a large case series of patients at a 10-year minimum follow-up. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on patients undergoing primary MAT between 2001 and 2012. Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales were collected preoperatively and at 1-, 2-, 5-, and minimum 10-year follow-ups. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to identify variables associated with reoperation and failure, defined as revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty. Reoperation was defined as a subsequent surgical intervention on the transplanted meniscus, including partial or total meniscectomy, meniscal repair, or failure as defined in the previous sentence. Results: A total of 174 patients undergoing MAT met the inclusion criteria and were followed for a mean of 12.7 ± 2.7 years (range, 10.0-21.0 years). The mean age at surgery was 28.3 ± 10.1 years. The patients were predominantly female (n = 92; 53%), and medial MAT was the most commonly performed procedure (n = 91; 52%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 115 patients (66%), with the most common procedure being osteochondral allograft transplantation (n = 59; 34%). Patients demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvements at all time points for all patient-reported outcome measures ( P ≤ .0001). A total of 65 patients (37%) underwent a meniscal reoperation at a mean time of 6.6 ± 5.5 years (range, 0.3-16.7 years) postoperatively. A total of 40 patients (23%) met the criteria for failure at a mean time of 7.3 ± 5.0 years (range, 1.0-17.4 years) after MAT, with 22 of these patients having undergone a previous meniscal reoperation. At the final follow-up, 13 patients (7%) had undergone revision MAT and 27 (15%) had converted to arthroplasty. The MAT survival rates free of meniscal reoperation and failure were 73% and 85% at 10 years and 60% and 72% at 15 years, respectively. At the time of the final follow-up, 86% of patients reported that they were satisfied with their overall postoperative condition. Conclusion: Primary MAT demonstrates efficacy and durability with high rates of patient satisfaction at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients should be counseled that although reoperation rates may approach 40% at 15 years, rates of overall revision MAT and conversion to arthroplasty remain low at long-term follow-up.