Literature DB >> 24532597

Survival and reoperation rates after meniscal allograft transplantation: analysis of failures for 172 consecutive transplants at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Frank McCormick1, Joshua D Harris, Geoffrey D Abrams, Kristen E Hussey, Hillary Wilson, Rachel Frank, Anil K Gupta, Bernard R Bach, Brian J Cole.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is a treatment option for knee pain in young patients with meniscal deficiency in the setting of intact articular surfaces, ligamentous stability, and normal alignment. It is being performed with increasing frequency, and the need for reoperations is not uncommon. A mean survival rate of allografts and indications for reoperations would be helpful information when counseling patients regarding the procedure. Purpose/ HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to quantify survival for MAT and report findings at reoperation. The hypothesis was that the reoperation rate would be frequent and that the most common secondary surgery would be arthroscopic debridement. STUDY
DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent MAT from 2003 to 2011 was conducted; all surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. The reoperation rate, timing of reoperation, procedure performed at reoperation, and findings at surgery, including the status of the meniscal and articular cartilage, were reviewed. Survival was defined as a lack of revision MAT or knee arthroplasty. Descriptive statistics, log-rank testing, cross-tabulation, and χ2 testing were analyzed, with an α value of .05 set as significant.
RESULTS: Of 200 patients who underwent MAT during the study period, 172 patients (86%; mean age, 34.3 ± 10.3 years) were evaluated at a mean of 59 months (range, 24-118 months) with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Forty-one percent of MATs were isolated, while 60% were performed with concomitant procedures. Sixty-four patients (32%) returned to the operating room after their index procedure. Arthroscopic debridement was performed in 59% (38/64) of these patients. The mean time to subsequent surgery was 21 months (range, 2-107 months), with 73% occurring within 2 years. Eight of 172 patients (4.7%) went on to require revision MAT or total knee replacement. Patients requiring secondary surgery within 2 years had an odds ratio of 8.4 (95% CI, 1.6-43.4) for future arthroplasty or MAT revision (P = .007).
CONCLUSION: In this series, there was a 32% reoperation rate for MAT, with simple arthroscopic debridement being the most common surgical treatment (59%), and a 95% allograft survival rate at a mean of 5 years. Those requiring additional surgery still benefited, having an 88% allograft survival rate, but were at an increased risk of failure. Patients requiring secondary surgery within 2 years had an odds ratio of 8.4 for future arthroplasty or MAT revision.

Entities:  

Keywords:  knee; meniscal allograft transplantation; reoperation rates; survival analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24532597     DOI: 10.1177/0363546513520115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  26 in total

1.  Meniscus transplantation.

Authors:  Rachel M Frank; Brian J Cole
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-12

2.  Survivorship and clinical outcomes of 147 consecutive isolated or combined arthroscopic bone plug free meniscal allograft transplantation.

Authors:  Stefano Zaffagnini; Alberto Grassi; Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli; Andrea Benzi; Margherita Serra; Marco Rotini; Laura Bragonzoni; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Medial Meniscus Radial Tear: A Transtibial 2-Tunnel Technique.

Authors:  Marco Nitri; Jorge Chahla; David Civitarese; Sanjeev Bhatia; Samuel G Moulton; Christopher M LaPrade; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2016-08-15

4.  Cell distribution and regenerative activity following meniscus replacement.

Authors:  Cathal J Moran; Selma Atmaca; Heidi A Declercq; Maria J Cornelissen; Peter C Verdonk
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-07-05       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Defining outcome after meniscal allograft transplantation: Is buying time a valid measure of success?

Authors:  Tim Spalding; Alan Getgood
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Outcome of meniscal allograft transplantation related to articular cartilage status: advanced chondral damage should not be a contraindication.

Authors:  P J Kempshall; B Parkinson; M Thomas; C Robb; H Standell; A Getgood; T Spalding
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-11-29       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  High-grade preoperative osteoarthritis of the index compartment is a major predictor of meniscal allograft failure.

Authors:  Philipp W Winkler; Nyaluma N Wagala; Jonathan D Hughes; Volker Musahl
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  Clinical Replacement Strategies for Meniscus Tissue Deficiency.

Authors:  Dean Wang; Erik Gonzalez-Leon; Scott A Rodeo; Kyriacos A Athanasiou
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2021-11-20       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Return to Work Following Arthroscopic Meniscal Allograft Transplantation.

Authors:  Avinesh Agarwalla; Joseph N Liu; David R Christian; Grant H Garcia; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Anirudh K Gowd; Adam B Yanke; Brian J Cole
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 3.117

10.  The quantitative evaluation of the impact of viable medial meniscus graft type on the biochemical and biomechanical properties of the rabbit tibial cartilage.

Authors:  Tomasz J Zwierzchowski; Jolanta Janus; Włodzimierz Konecki; Grzegorz Kubiak; Jarosław Fabiś
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.