Rachel E Keller1, Evan A O'Donnell2, Giovanna I S Medina2, Shannon E Linderman2, Timothy T W Cheng2, Orlando D Sabbag2, Luke S Oh2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery-Sports Medicine Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, 175 Cambridge St, Suite 400, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. keller.rachel94@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery-Sports Medicine Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, 175 Cambridge St, Suite 400, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Orthopedic literature remains divided on the utility of biologic augmentation to optimize outcomes after isolated meniscal repair. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the clinical outcomes and re-operation rates of biologically augmented meniscal repairs. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were queried in October 2020 for published literature on isolated meniscal repair with biological augmentation. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias by two appraisal tools. Patient demographics, meniscal tear characteristics, surgical procedure, augmentation type, post-operative rehabilitation, patient reported outcome measures, and length of follow-up were recorded, reviewed, and analyzed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Of 3794 articles, 18 met inclusion criteria and yielded 537 patients who underwent biologic augmentation of meniscal repair. The biologically augmented repair rates were 5.8-27.0% with PRP augmentation, 0.0-28.5% with fibrin clot augmentation, 0.0-12.9% with marrow stimulation, and 0.0% with stem cell augmentation. One of seven studies showed lower revision rates with augmented meniscal repair compared to standard repair techniques, whereas five of seven found no benefit. Three of ten studies found significant functional improvement of biologically augmented repair versus standard repair techniques and six of ten studies found no difference. There was significant heterogeneity in methods for biologic preparation, delivery, and post-operative rehabilitation protocols. CONCLUSION: Patients reported significant improvements in functional outcomes scores after repair with biological augmentation, though the benefit over standard repair controls is questionable. Revision rates after biologically augmented meniscal repair also appear similar to standard repair techniques. Clinicians should bear this in mind when considering biologic augmentation in the setting of meniscal repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
PURPOSE: Orthopedic literature remains divided on the utility of biologic augmentation to optimize outcomes after isolated meniscal repair. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the clinical outcomes and re-operation rates of biologically augmented meniscal repairs. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were queried in October 2020 for published literature on isolated meniscal repair with biological augmentation. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias by two appraisal tools. Patient demographics, meniscal tear characteristics, surgical procedure, augmentation type, post-operative rehabilitation, patient reported outcome measures, and length of follow-up were recorded, reviewed, and analyzed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Of 3794 articles, 18 met inclusion criteria and yielded 537 patients who underwent biologic augmentation of meniscal repair. The biologically augmented repair rates were 5.8-27.0% with PRP augmentation, 0.0-28.5% with fibrin clot augmentation, 0.0-12.9% with marrow stimulation, and 0.0% with stem cell augmentation. One of seven studies showed lower revision rates with augmented meniscal repair compared to standard repair techniques, whereas five of seven found no benefit. Three of ten studies found significant functional improvement of biologically augmented repair versus standard repair techniques and six of ten studies found no difference. There was significant heterogeneity in methods for biologic preparation, delivery, and post-operative rehabilitation protocols. CONCLUSION: Patients reported significant improvements in functional outcomes scores after repair with biological augmentation, though the benefit over standard repair controls is questionable. Revision rates after biologically augmented meniscal repair also appear similar to standard repair techniques. Clinicians should bear this in mind when considering biologic augmentation in the setting of meniscal repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.