PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine whether medial meniscal substitution with a polyurethane scaffold (Actifit(®)) improves the outcome of medial meniscal-deficient varus knees undergoing open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. METHODS: Sixty patients with symptomatic varus knees those who underwent open-wedge high tibial osteotomies were prospectively studied. In 30 patients, the medial meniscus was left with a defect larger than 25 mm (Group M). An Actifit(®) device was implanted (Group A) in the remaining 30 patients. Patients were functionally evaluated with WOMET, IKDC and VAS. Patient satisfaction was graded from 0 (not satisfied) to 4 (very satisfied). RESULTS: Both groups were comparable preoperatively. They had similar follow-up periods (31.2 months; range 24-47.5; n.s.). WOMET improved a mean of 53.4 ± 8.4 and 42.4 ± 17.2 points in Groups M and A, respectively (p = 0.002). IKDC improved a mean of 56.7 ± 12 and 50.3 ± 15.6 points in Groups M and A, respectively (n.s.). VAS dropped 5.9 ± 2.1 and 4.7 ± 2.8 points in Groups M and A, respectively (p = 0.006). Patient satisfaction averaged 3.3 ± 0.8 and 3.3 ± 1 in Groups M and A, respectively (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic varus knees were treated with open-wedge high tibial osteotomies, and a meniscectomy was improved more at short-term follow-up in most of the evaluated functional scores than those patients with concomitant implantation of a medial Actifit(®) implant. However, there was no difference in terms of patient satisfaction with the procedure. Based on the short-term functional results of this study, no data were provided to support medial meniscal substitution with a polyurethane scaffold when an open-wedge high tibial osteotomy is being performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective comparative study, Level II.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine whether medial meniscal substitution with a polyurethane scaffold (Actifit(®)) improves the outcome of medial meniscal-deficient varus knees undergoing open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. METHODS: Sixty patients with symptomatic varus knees those who underwent open-wedge high tibial osteotomies were prospectively studied. In 30 patients, the medial meniscus was left with a defect larger than 25 mm (Group M). An Actifit(®) device was implanted (Group A) in the remaining 30 patients. Patients were functionally evaluated with WOMET, IKDC and VAS. Patient satisfaction was graded from 0 (not satisfied) to 4 (very satisfied). RESULTS: Both groups were comparable preoperatively. They had similar follow-up periods (31.2 months; range 24-47.5; n.s.). WOMET improved a mean of 53.4 ± 8.4 and 42.4 ± 17.2 points in Groups M and A, respectively (p = 0.002). IKDC improved a mean of 56.7 ± 12 and 50.3 ± 15.6 points in Groups M and A, respectively (n.s.). VAS dropped 5.9 ± 2.1 and 4.7 ± 2.8 points in Groups M and A, respectively (p = 0.006). Patient satisfaction averaged 3.3 ± 0.8 and 3.3 ± 1 in Groups M and A, respectively (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with symptomatic varus knees were treated with open-wedge high tibial osteotomies, and a meniscectomy was improved more at short-term follow-up in most of the evaluated functional scores than those patients with concomitant implantation of a medial Actifit(®) implant. However, there was no difference in terms of patient satisfaction with the procedure. Based on the short-term functional results of this study, no data were provided to support medial meniscal substitution with a polyurethane scaffold when an open-wedge high tibial osteotomy is being performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective comparative study, Level II.
Authors: Peter Verdonk; Philippe Beaufils; Johan Bellemans; Patrick Djian; Eva-Lisa Heinrichs; Wouter Huysse; Heinz Laprell; Rainer Siebold; René Verdonk Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Neil A Segal; Donald D Anderson; Krishna S Iyer; Jennifer Baker; James C Torner; John A Lynch; David T Felson; Cora E Lewis; Thomas D Brown Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Tineke De Coninck; Wouter Huysse; Laurent Willemot; René Verdonk; Koenraad Verstraete; Peter Verdonk Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: G Filardo; E Kon; F Perdisa; A Sessa; A Di Martino; M Busacca; S Zaffagnini; M Marcacci Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-07-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Kolja Gelse; Ludwig Körber; Martin Schöne; Kay Raum; Peter Koch; Milena Pachowsky; Götz Welsch; Roman Breiter Journal: Cartilage Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Karl F Schüttler; Felix Haberhauer; Markus Gesslein; Thomas J Heyse; Jens Figiel; Olaf Lorbach; Turgay Efe; Philip P Roessler Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-08-23 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Darby A Houck; Matthew J Kraeutler; John W Belk; Eric C McCarty; Jonathan T Bravman Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: J A D van der Woude; K Wiegant; R J van Heerwaarden; S Spruijt; P M van Roermund; R J H Custers; S C Mastbergen; F P J G Lafeber Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Philipp W Winkler; Benjamin B Rothrauff; Rafael A Buerba; Neha Shah; Stefano Zaffagnini; Peter Alexander; Volker Musahl Journal: J Exp Orthop Date: 2020-07-25