AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to compare the outcomes of combined meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and cartilage repair/restoration against isolated procedures.
  • Six studies involving 110 patients showed improvement in clinical outcomes after the combined surgery, with 4 of 6 studies reporting results comparable to isolated procedures.
  • However, the failure rate was 12%, with most failures linked to issues with the MAT, highlighting a need for potential follow-up surgeries.

Article Abstract

Purpose: Combined meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) and cartilage repair or restoration is a recognized treatment for patients with painful, meniscus-deficient knees and full-thickness cartilage damage. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare outcomes after combined MAT and cartilage repair/restoration with the outcomes of isolated MAT or cartilage repair/restoration.

Methods: Multiple databases were searched with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for clinical outcome studies after combined MAT and cartilage repair or restoration.

Results: Six studies were identified for inclusion. In total 110 patients underwent combined MAT/cartilage repair or restoration (medial compartment in 66 and lateral compartment in 44). Patients underwent MAT and either autologous chondrocyte implantation (n = 73), osteochondral allograft (n = 20), osteochondral autograft transfer (n = 17), or microfracture (n = 3). Thirty-six patients underwent additional concurrent surgeries (high tibial or distal femoral osteotomy, cruciate or collateral ligament reconstruction, and hardware removal). All clinical outcomes were improved at final follow-up (mean, 36 months). In 4 of 6 studies, overall outcomes of combined surgery were equivalent to those of either procedure performed in isolation. In 2 studies outcomes of combined surgery were not as good as those of either procedure performed in isolation. Failure occurred in 12% of patients who underwent combined MAT and cartilage restoration, and they required revision surgery. Most failures (85%) of combined surgery were due to failure of the MAT (as opposed to the cartilage technique). One-half of all patients required at least 1 surgery after the index procedure before final follow-up.

Conclusions: Clinical outcomes after combined MAT and cartilage repair/restoration are similar to those after either procedure in isolation. Despite low rates of complications and failures, there is a high rate of subsequent surgery after combined MAT and cartilage repair or restoration.

Level Of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2010.08.007DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mat cartilage
28
combined mat
20
cartilage repair
16
outcomes combined
16
patients underwent
16
systematic review
12
repair restoration
12
combined surgery
12
combined
11
cartilage
10

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!