Davide Reale1, Davide Previtali2, Luca Andriolo3, Alberto Grassi4, Christian Candrian2, Stefano Zaffagnini4, Giuseppe Filardo5,6. 1. Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica II, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Di Barbiano, 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy. davide.reale@ior.it. 2. Orthopaedic and Traumatology Unit, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland. 3. Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica II, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Di Barbiano, 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy. lucas.andriolo@gmail.com. 4. Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica II, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Di Barbiano, 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy. 5. Applied and Translational Research (ATR) Center, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy. 6. Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana - USI, Lugano, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the results of two meniscal scaffolds, CMI and Actifit, for the treatment of partial meniscal lesions. METHODS: A systematic review was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in January 2021, including randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective observational studies on the clinical results of meniscal scaffolds. A meta-analysis of the clinical results was performed; the rate of failures was recorded, as well as radiological results. The quality of the included studies was assessed with a modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS). RESULTS: The search identified 37 studies (31 in the last 10 years): 2 RCTs, 5 comparative studies, 26 prospective and 4 retrospective series on a total of 1276 patients (472 CMI, 804 Actifit). The quality of evidence was generally low. An overall significant improvement in all clinical scores was documented for both scaffolds. The meta-analysis showed no differences between the two scaffolds in terms of patient reported outcome measures and activity level. The meta-analysis on the risk of failures documented a risk of failures of 7% in the CMI and of 9% in the Actifit group. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing interest on the results of meniscal scaffolds, with most studies published recently. However, long-term data on the Actifit scaffold and high-level comparative studies are missing. Both CMI and Actifit offered good clinical results with a significant and comparable improvement in symptoms and function, and with a low number of failures over time. Accordingly, with the proper indication, their use may be encouraged in the clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
PURPOSE: To compare the results of two meniscal scaffolds, CMI and Actifit, for the treatment of partial meniscal lesions. METHODS: A systematic review was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in January 2021, including randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective observational studies on the clinical results of meniscal scaffolds. A meta-analysis of the clinical results was performed; the rate of failures was recorded, as well as radiological results. The quality of the included studies was assessed with a modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS). RESULTS: The search identified 37 studies (31 in the last 10 years): 2 RCTs, 5 comparative studies, 26 prospective and 4 retrospective series on a total of 1276 patients (472 CMI, 804 Actifit). The quality of evidence was generally low. An overall significant improvement in all clinical scores was documented for both scaffolds. The meta-analysis showed no differences between the two scaffolds in terms of patient reported outcome measures and activity level. The meta-analysis on the risk of failures documented a risk of failures of 7% in the CMI and of 9% in the Actifit group. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing interest on the results of meniscal scaffolds, with most studies published recently. However, long-term data on the Actifit scaffold and high-level comparative studies are missing. Both CMI and Actifit offered good clinical results with a significant and comparable improvement in symptoms and function, and with a low number of failures over time. Accordingly, with the proper indication, their use may be encouraged in the clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
Authors: Paolo Bulgheroni; Luigi Murena; Chiara Ratti; Erica Bulgheroni; Mario Ronga; Paolo Cherubino Journal: Knee Date: 2009-10-02 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Pablo Eduardo Gelber; Alexandru Mihai Petrica; Anna Isart; Raquel Mari-Molina; Juan Carlos Monllau Journal: Knee Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Geoffrey D Abrams; Rachel M Frank; Anil K Gupta; Joshua D Harris; Frank M McCormick; Brian J Cole Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 6.202
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: Hélder Pereira; Ibrahim Fatih Cengiz; Joana Silva-Correia; Joaquim M Oliveira; José C Vasconcelos; Sérgio Gomes; Pedro L Ripoll; Jón Karlsson; Rui L Reis; João Espregueira-Mendes Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-03-26 Impact factor: 4.114