Assessment of Anatomic Restoration and Clinical Outcomes Between Medial and Lateral Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

BACKGROUND: Proper anatomic restoration is an important consideration for meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT), even with the different anatomica characteristics between the medial meniscus and lateral meniscus. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of anatomic restoration in medial and lateral MAT (MMAT and LMAT) procedures and to compare their outcomes. We hypothesized that (1) the anatomic differences between the medial and lateral menisci will mean a less accurate anatomic restoration for MMAT and (2) clinical outcomes after MMAT will be inferior compared with LMAT. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 20 patients who underwent MMAT using the bone plug technique and 21 patients who underwent LMAT using the keyhole technique at a single institution from July 2014 to June 2019. Demographic data, previous surgeries, and concomitant procedures were recorded, as were lower limb alignment and osteoarthritis grade on radiographs. Using preoperative and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging, the meniscal position, rotation, extrusion, and intrameniscal signal intensity were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 41.15 ± 18.86 and 45.43 ± 21.32 months for the MMAT and LMAT patients, respectively. Concomitant procedures were performed in 90% of MMATs and 15% of LMATs. There was no significant difference between the native and postoperative root positions after LMAT; however, for MMAT, the position of the anterior root was located significantly posteriorly (P = .002) and medially (P = .007) compared with preoperatively. In addition, the allograft medial meniscus was restored in a more internally rotated position (P = .029). MMATs also exhibited significantly increased meniscal extrusion compared with LMATs (posterior horn, P < .001; midbody, P = .027; anterior horn, P = .006). However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups at final follow-up in intrameniscal signal intensity or clinical scores. CONCLUSION: LMAT showed higher accuracy than MMAT in restoring meniscal position and rotation, and there was less meniscal extrusion. However, clinical scores improved after both LMAT and MMAT compared with preoperative values, and midterm clinical outcomes were similar. The small anatomical errors seen in the MMAT technique were not clinically relevant at midterm follow-up.