Cargando…

Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The reported incidence of meniscal tears is approximately 61 per 100,000. In instances where preservation of the native meniscus is no longer a feasible option, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and implants or scaffolds may be considered. The goal of this review was to compare the success an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dangelmajer, Sean, Familiari, Filippo, Simonetta, Roberto, Kaymakoglu, Mehmet, Huri, Gazi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Knee Society 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5336368/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28231642
http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.16.059
_version_ 1782512201901277184
author Dangelmajer, Sean
Familiari, Filippo
Simonetta, Roberto
Kaymakoglu, Mehmet
Huri, Gazi
author_facet Dangelmajer, Sean
Familiari, Filippo
Simonetta, Roberto
Kaymakoglu, Mehmet
Huri, Gazi
author_sort Dangelmajer, Sean
collection PubMed
description The reported incidence of meniscal tears is approximately 61 per 100,000. In instances where preservation of the native meniscus is no longer a feasible option, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and implants or scaffolds may be considered. The goal of this review was to compare the success and failure rates of two techniques, MAT and meniscal scaffolds, and make an inference which treatment is more preferable at the present time and future. Studies that met inclusion criteria were assessed for technique used, type of transplant used, number of procedures included in the study, mean age of patients, mean follow-up time, number of failures, failure rate, and reported reoperation rate. Fifteen studies for the MAT group and 7 studies for the meniscal scaffold group were identified. In this selection of studies, the average failure rate in the MAT group was 18.7% and average reoperation rate was 31.3%. The average failure rate in the meniscal scaffold group was 5.6%, and average reoperation rate was 6.9%. It appears that although MAT is associated with high reoperation and failure rates, the limited number of studies on both MAT and scaffolds and mainly short-term results of scaffold studies make it difficult to make an objective comparison.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5336368
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Korean Knee Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53363682017-03-08 Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature Dangelmajer, Sean Familiari, Filippo Simonetta, Roberto Kaymakoglu, Mehmet Huri, Gazi Knee Surg Relat Res Review Article The reported incidence of meniscal tears is approximately 61 per 100,000. In instances where preservation of the native meniscus is no longer a feasible option, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and implants or scaffolds may be considered. The goal of this review was to compare the success and failure rates of two techniques, MAT and meniscal scaffolds, and make an inference which treatment is more preferable at the present time and future. Studies that met inclusion criteria were assessed for technique used, type of transplant used, number of procedures included in the study, mean age of patients, mean follow-up time, number of failures, failure rate, and reported reoperation rate. Fifteen studies for the MAT group and 7 studies for the meniscal scaffold group were identified. In this selection of studies, the average failure rate in the MAT group was 18.7% and average reoperation rate was 31.3%. The average failure rate in the meniscal scaffold group was 5.6%, and average reoperation rate was 6.9%. It appears that although MAT is associated with high reoperation and failure rates, the limited number of studies on both MAT and scaffolds and mainly short-term results of scaffold studies make it difficult to make an objective comparison. Korean Knee Society 2017-03 2017-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5336368/ /pubmed/28231642 http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.16.059 Text en Copyright © 2017 Korean Knee Society This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Dangelmajer, Sean
Familiari, Filippo
Simonetta, Roberto
Kaymakoglu, Mehmet
Huri, Gazi
Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_full Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_fullStr Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_full_unstemmed Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_short Meniscal Transplants and Scaffolds: A Systematic Review of the Literature
title_sort meniscal transplants and scaffolds: a systematic review of the literature
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5336368/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28231642
http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.16.059
work_keys_str_mv AT dangelmajersean meniscaltransplantsandscaffoldsasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT familiarifilippo meniscaltransplantsandscaffoldsasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT simonettaroberto meniscaltransplantsandscaffoldsasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT kaymakoglumehmet meniscaltransplantsandscaffoldsasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT hurigazi meniscaltransplantsandscaffoldsasystematicreviewoftheliterature