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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |