Marx, Robert G.

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented. Purpose: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair. Study Design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment. Results: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears ( P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.

Background: Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation ( P < .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores ( P < .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years. Conclusion: Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.

ObjectiveTo estimate the risk of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–based structural changes in knee osteoarthritis (OA) among individuals with meniscal tear and knee OA, using MRIs obtained at baseline and 18 and 60 months after randomization in a randomized controlled trial of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) versus physical therapy (PT).MethodsWe used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (METEOR) trial. MRIs were read using the MRI OA Knee Score (MOAKS). We used linear mixed‐effects models to examine the association between treatment group and continuous MOAKS summary scores, and Poisson regression to assess categorical changes in knee joint structure. Analyses assessed changes in OA between baseline and month 18 and between months 18 and 60. We performed both intention‐to‐treat and as‐treated analyses.ResultsThe analytic sample included 302 participants. For both treatment groups, more OA changes were seen during the early interval than during the later interval. ITT analysis revealed that, between baseline and month 18, APM was significantly associated with an increased risk of having a worsening cartilage surface area score, involving both any worsening across all knee joint subregions (risk ratio [RR] 1.35 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14, 1.61]) and the number of subregions damaged (RR 1.44 [95% CI 1.13, 1.85]) having a worsening effusion‐synovitis score (RR 2.62 [95% CI 1.32, 5.21]), and having ≥1 additional subregion with osteophytes (RR 1.24 [95% CI 1.02, 1.50]). Significant associations were detected between months 18 and 60 only for having any subregion with a worsening osteophyte score (RR 1.28 [95% CI 1.04, 1.58]).ConclusionThese findings suggest that the association between APM and MRI‐based structural changes in knee OA is most apparent during the initial 18 months after surgery. The reason for attenuation of this association over longer follow‐up merits further investigation.

ObjectiveMiddle‐aged subjects with meniscal tear treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) experience greater progression of damage to joint structures on imaging than subjects treated nonoperatively. It is unclear whether these changes are clinically relevant. The goal of this study was to assess whether worsening in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–assessed tissue damage over 18 months leads to subsequent worsening in knee pain over the subsequent 3.5 years.MethodsWe used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial of APM versus physical therapy for subjects ages ≥45 years with knee pain, cartilage damage, and meniscal tear. We assessed whether change in cartilage surface area damage score (and other structural measures) from baseline to 18 months, assessed on MRI with the MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score (MOAKS) system, was associated with change in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score (range 0–100; 100 = worst) from 18 to 60 months.ResultsThe primary analysis included 168 subjects with complete MRI data at baseline and 18 months and KOOS data at 18 and 60 months. We did not observe clinically important associations between change in cartilage surface area score between baseline and 18 months and change in pain scores from 18 to 60 months. Pain scores in the worst tertile for cartilage surface area damage score progression worsened by 0.45 points more than in the best tertile (95% confidence interval –4.45, 5.35). Similarly, we did not observe clinically important associations between changes in bone marrow lesions, osteophytes, or synovitis and subsequent pain.ConclusionWe did not observe clinically important associations between early changes in cartilage damage and other structural measures and worsening in pain over the subsequent 3.5 years. Further follow‐up is required to assess this association over a longer follow‐up period.

ObjectivePatients with meniscal tears reporting meniscal symptoms such as catching or locking have traditionally undergone arthroscopy. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether patients with meniscal tears who report meniscal symptoms have greater improvement with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) than physical therapy (PT).MethodsWe used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, which randomized participants with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and meniscal tear to APM or PT. The frequency of each meniscal symptom (clicking, catching, popping, intermittent locking, giving way, swelling) was measured at baseline and 6 months. We used linear regression models to determine whether the difference in improvement in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score at 6 months between patients treated with APM versus PT was modified by the presence of each meniscal symptom. We also determined the percentage of participants with resolution of meniscal symptoms by treatment group.ResultsWe included 287 participants. The presence (versus absence) of any of the meniscal symptoms did not modify the improvement in KOOS pain score between APM versus PT by >0.5 SD (all P interaction >0.05). APM led to greater resolution of intermittent locking and clicking than PT (locking 70% versus 46%, clicking 41% versus 25%). No difference in resolution of the other meniscal symptoms was observed.ConclusionMeniscal symptoms were not associated with improved pain relief. Although symptoms of clicking and intermittent locking had a greater reduction in the APM group, the presence of meniscal symptoms in isolation should not inform clinical decisions surrounding APM versus PT in patients with meniscal tear and knee OA.

ObjectiveTo determine the 5‐year outcome of treatment for meniscal tear in osteoarthritis.MethodsWe examined 5‐year follow‐up data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research trial (METEOR) of physical therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. We performed primary intent‐to‐treat (ITT) and secondary as‐treated analyses. The primary outcome measure was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain scale; total knee replacement (TKR) was a secondary outcome measure. We used piecewise linear mixed models to describe change in KOOS pain. We calculated 5‐year cumulative TKR incidence and used a Cox model to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for TKR, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).ResultsThree hundred fifty‐one participants were randomized. In the ITT analysis, the KOOS pain scores were ~46 (scale of 0 [no pain] to 100 [most pain]) at baseline in both groups. Pain scores improved substantially in both groups over the first 3 months, continued to improve through the next 24 months (to ~18 in each group), and were stable at 24–60 months. Results of the as‐treated analyses of the KOOS pain score were similar. Twenty‐five participants (7.1% [95% CI 4.4–9.8%]) underwent TKR over 5 years. In the ITT model, the HR for TKR was 2.0 (95% CI 0.8–4.9) for subjects randomized to the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group, compared to those randomized to the physical therapy group. In the as‐treated analysis, the HR for TKR was 4.9 (95% CI 1.1–20.9) for subjects ultimately treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, compared to those treated nonoperatively.ConclusionPain improved considerably in both groups over 60 months. While ITT analysis revealed no statistically significant differences following TKR, greater frequency of TKR in those undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy merits further study.

ObjectiveThe present study was undertaken to evaluate changes in knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings over the course of 18 months in subjects with osteoarthritic change and meniscal tear treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) or nonoperatively with physical therapy (PT).MethodsWe used 18‐month follow‐up data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research Trial. MRI results were read with reference to the MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score. We focused on 18‐month change in bone marrow lesions (BMLs), cartilage thickness, cartilage surface area, osteophyte size, effusion‐synovitis, and Hoffa‐synovitis. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess associations between MRI‐based changes in each feature and treatment type.ResultsA total of 351 subjects were randomized, and 225 had both baseline and 18‐month MRI results. In both treatment groups, patients experienced substantial changes in several MRI‐based markers. In 60% of the APM group, versus 33% of the PT group, cartilage surface area damage advanced in ≥2 subregions (adjusted odds ratio 4.2 [95% confidence interval 2.0–9.0). Patients who underwent APM also had greater advancement in scores for osteophytes and effusion‐synovitis. We did not find significant associations between treatment type and change in cartilage thickness, BMLs, or Hoffa‐synovitis.ConclusionThis cohort of patients with meniscal tear and osteoarthritis showed marked advancement in MRI‐based features over 18 months. Patients treated with APM showed more advancement in some features compared to those treated nonoperatively. The clinical relevance of these early findings is unknown and requires further study.

Objective Synovitis is a prevalent feature in patients with knee osteoarthritis ( OA ) and meniscal tear and is associated with pain and cartilage damage. Patient‐reported swelling is also prevalent in this population. The aim of this study was to investigate the cross‐sectional association between patient‐reported swelling and effusion‐synovitis detected by magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) in patients with OA and meniscal tear. Methods We used baseline data from a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research ( METEOR ). MRI ‐identified effusion‐synovitis, a proxy for effusion and synovitis on noncontrast MRI s, was graded as none/small versus medium/large. Using MRI ‐identified effusion‐synovitis as the gold standard, we assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of patient self‐reported swelling in the previous week (none, intermittent, constant) to detect effusion and synovitis. Results We analyzed data from 276 patients. Twenty‐five percent of patients reported no swelling, 40% had intermittent swelling, and 36% had constant swelling. Fifty‐two percent had MRI ‐identified medium/large–grade effusion‐synovitis. As compared with MRI ‐identified effusion‐synovitis, any patient‐reported swelling (versus none) had a sensitivity of 84% (95% confidence interval [95% CI ] 77–89), a specificity of 34% (95% CI 26–43), and a positive predictive value of 57% (95% CI 54–61). A history of constant swelling (versus none or intermittent) showed a sensitivity of 46% (95% CI 37–54), a specificity of 75% (95% CI 67–82), and a positive predictive value of 66% (95% CI 58–74). Conclusion We found that the sensitivity and specificity of patient‐reported swelling were modest when compared with effusion‐synovitis detected by MRI . These data urge caution against using patient‐reported swelling as a proxy of inflammation manifesting as effusion‐synovitis.

Abstract A recent randomized trial from the Finnish Degenerative Meniscal Lesion Study Group was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and attempted to determine the efficacy of partial meniscectomy without osteoarthritis. Patients were randomized to either arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or sham surgery. The authors concluded that the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy were no better than those after the sham surgical procedure. However, there are several important limitations of this trial that make it difficult to generalize to the 700,000 arthroscopic partial meniscectomies performed in the United States each year. In this small sample of 146 patients, patients with traumatic meniscal tears and locking symptoms—those most likely to benefit from a partial meniscectomy—were excluded. In addition, although patients with radiographic arthritis were excluded, most of the patients in the study had degenerative changes at the time of arthroscopy. Therefore it is difficult to determine whether the patients were symptomatic from their chondral degeneration or their degenerative meniscal tear. In our opinion this study does not change the role of surgery in current clinical practice. The primary indication for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy remains symptoms of well‐localized joint line pain with acute onset and mechanical symptoms such as catching or locking that have failed comprehensive nonoperative management.

Purpose To identify clinical variables that affect a surgeon's decision to recommend arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). Methods Members of 2 orthopaedic specialty societies were invited to participate in an online survey by e‐mail. The survey consisted of surgeon demographics and case scenarios to evaluate clinical decision making for APM. Posterior probabilities were calculated to determine the effect of clinical factors on the likelihood of recommending APM. Results Of the respondents with valid e‐mail addresses, 733 (19.3%) returned a completed survey, but only 533 (14.1%) met the eligibility criteria (treated or referred an APM candidate within the past year). Respondents were aged 46.7 ± 9.4 and had performed a mean of 115 APMs in the previous year. Posterior probabilities for a combination of 6 clinical indicators identified 3 factors that most influenced a surgeon's decision to recommend APM: radiographic findings, McMurray test, and failure of nonoperative management. Conclusions Significant variation exists among practicing orthopaedic surgeons with regard to decision making for APM. The 3 clinical factors that most influenced a surgeon's decision to recommend APM were normal radiographic findings, failed nonoperative treatment, and the presence of positive physical examination findings (i.e., positive McMurray test, joint line tenderness, and effusion). Level of Evidence Level III, decision analysis.