Cargando…

Failure rates and clinical outcomes of synthetic meniscal implants following partial meniscectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Meniscal injury is one of the most common indications for knee surgery. The advent of meniscal repair techniques has facilitated meniscal preservation in suitable cases. Meniscal substitution with scaffolds may be advantageous following partial meniscal resection. There are three main sc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kohli, Suraj, Schwenck, Jonas, Barlow, Ian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9190156/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35692048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43019-022-00155-1
_version_ 1784725732974395392
author Kohli, Suraj
Schwenck, Jonas
Barlow, Ian
author_facet Kohli, Suraj
Schwenck, Jonas
Barlow, Ian
author_sort Kohli, Suraj
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Meniscal injury is one of the most common indications for knee surgery. The advent of meniscal repair techniques has facilitated meniscal preservation in suitable cases. Meniscal substitution with scaffolds may be advantageous following partial meniscal resection. There are three main scaffolds in current clinical use; Collagen Meniscal Implant (CMI Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI, USA), Actifit (Actifit, Orteq Ltd, London, UK) and NUsurface (Active Implants, LLC). The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes and failure rates of patients who have had implantation with these meniscal scaffolds. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies that included patients who had surgical implantation with Actifit or CMI. Eligibility criteria included papers that described both clinical outcomes and failure rates of these implants, a mean follow up of 5 years and studies published in English. A Google search was also performed to identify any grey literature. RESULTS: Five Level IV studies were found for Actifit. One Level II, one Level III and four Level IV studies were found for the CMI implant. One Level II study was identified for the NUsurface scaffold with a follow-up 12 months and was included for completeness. Overall, 262 patients were treated with Actifit, 109 with CMI and 65 with NUsurface. Failure rates for Actifit were 18% (range 6.3–31.8%) with a mean follow up of 66.8 months, and for CMI 6.5% (range 0–11.8%) with a mean follow up of 97.1 months. The NUsurface failure rate was 16.9% at 12 months. Clinical outcomes such as VAS, Tegner and Lysholm scores improved significantly post-operatively. However, there was a high volume of concurrent procedures, such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions and high tibial osteotomies in each study group; 118 (45%) for Actifit and 53 (45%) for CMI. CONCLUSION: The evidence for meniscal scaffold use is insufficient to suggest that they could potentially improve clinical outcomes in patients post-meniscal resection. This is largely due to the high proportion of concurrent procedures performed at index procedure for both CMI and Actifit. On the basis of current evidence, the use of meniscal scaffolds as a sole treatment for partial meniscal defects cannot be recommended, owing to the relatively high failure rate and paucity of clinical data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9190156
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91901562022-06-14 Failure rates and clinical outcomes of synthetic meniscal implants following partial meniscectomy: a systematic review Kohli, Suraj Schwenck, Jonas Barlow, Ian Knee Surg Relat Res Review Article BACKGROUND: Meniscal injury is one of the most common indications for knee surgery. The advent of meniscal repair techniques has facilitated meniscal preservation in suitable cases. Meniscal substitution with scaffolds may be advantageous following partial meniscal resection. There are three main scaffolds in current clinical use; Collagen Meniscal Implant (CMI Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI, USA), Actifit (Actifit, Orteq Ltd, London, UK) and NUsurface (Active Implants, LLC). The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes and failure rates of patients who have had implantation with these meniscal scaffolds. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies that included patients who had surgical implantation with Actifit or CMI. Eligibility criteria included papers that described both clinical outcomes and failure rates of these implants, a mean follow up of 5 years and studies published in English. A Google search was also performed to identify any grey literature. RESULTS: Five Level IV studies were found for Actifit. One Level II, one Level III and four Level IV studies were found for the CMI implant. One Level II study was identified for the NUsurface scaffold with a follow-up 12 months and was included for completeness. Overall, 262 patients were treated with Actifit, 109 with CMI and 65 with NUsurface. Failure rates for Actifit were 18% (range 6.3–31.8%) with a mean follow up of 66.8 months, and for CMI 6.5% (range 0–11.8%) with a mean follow up of 97.1 months. The NUsurface failure rate was 16.9% at 12 months. Clinical outcomes such as VAS, Tegner and Lysholm scores improved significantly post-operatively. However, there was a high volume of concurrent procedures, such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions and high tibial osteotomies in each study group; 118 (45%) for Actifit and 53 (45%) for CMI. CONCLUSION: The evidence for meniscal scaffold use is insufficient to suggest that they could potentially improve clinical outcomes in patients post-meniscal resection. This is largely due to the high proportion of concurrent procedures performed at index procedure for both CMI and Actifit. On the basis of current evidence, the use of meniscal scaffolds as a sole treatment for partial meniscal defects cannot be recommended, owing to the relatively high failure rate and paucity of clinical data. BioMed Central 2022-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9190156/ /pubmed/35692048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43019-022-00155-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review Article
Kohli, Suraj
Schwenck, Jonas
Barlow, Ian
Failure rates and clinical outcomes of synthetic meniscal implants following partial meniscectomy: a systematic review
title Failure rates and clinical outcomes of synthetic meniscal implants following partial meniscectomy: a systematic review
title_full Failure rates and clinical outcomes of synthetic meniscal implants following partial meniscectomy: a systematic review
title_fullStr Failure rates and clinical outcomes of synthetic meniscal implants following partial meniscectomy: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Failure rates and clinical outcomes of synthetic meniscal implants following partial meniscectomy: a systematic review
title_short Failure rates and clinical outcomes of synthetic meniscal implants following partial meniscectomy: a systematic review
title_sort failure rates and clinical outcomes of synthetic meniscal implants following partial meniscectomy: a systematic review
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9190156/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35692048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43019-022-00155-1
work_keys_str_mv AT kohlisuraj failureratesandclinicaloutcomesofsyntheticmeniscalimplantsfollowingpartialmeniscectomyasystematicreview
AT schwenckjonas failureratesandclinicaloutcomesofsyntheticmeniscalimplantsfollowingpartialmeniscectomyasystematicreview
AT barlowian failureratesandclinicaloutcomesofsyntheticmeniscalimplantsfollowingpartialmeniscectomyasystematicreview