Follow-up of collagen meniscus implant patients: Clinical, radiological, and magnetic resonance imaging results at 5years

Meniscus Reconstruction Using a New Collagen Meniscus Implant

“…These findings were confirmed by Rodkey et al (1999) at 24 months' follow-up, when reduction of osteoarthritic degeneration was also noted. As suggested by these previous studies, Bulgheroni et al (2010) showed a progressive resorption of the scaffold, with implant remnants visible at 3 years' follow-up and complete absence of the implant at 5 years. Analogously, Rodkey et al (2008) reported that only 10-25 % of the original implant was still present at the 1-year follow-up.…”

“…However, this process, which suggests implant maturation, appears to be almost complete in only a small percentage of implants. In fact, most devices assume a signal that is slightly hyperintense compared to the native meniscus, and which is more similar to the newly implanted scaffold (Bulgheroni et al 2010;Monllau et al 2011;Zaffagnini et al 2011Zaffagnini et al , 2012. …”

Meniscal scaffolds: Early experience and review of the literature

“…In the Menaflex group there were seven medial and five lateral procedures with a mean follow-up of 24.1 months (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27). With the Actifit scaffold there were seven medial and four lateral procedures with a mean follow-up of 14.7 months (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18).…”

“…Twenty-one out of 23 (91.3%) had improved knee scores at latest follow-up [mean 19.4 months (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)]. Compared to pre-surgery levels there was a significant improvement (all b0.05) in the mean Lysholm, IKDC and KOOS scores at 24 months for Menaflex (n= 9) and at 18 months for Actifit (n =5), (except for KOOS ADL (p =0.0572) and KOOS sport (p= 0.00793) for Actifit at 18 months), Table 1, (Figs.…”

Meniscus repair and regeneration: review on current methods and research potential

“…Satisfactory clinical results have been reported (Rodkey et al, 1999), while MRI and histological results are controversial: (i) the CMI shrinks over time; (ii) it showed no histological remnants 5 to 6 years after implantation (Steadman and Rodkey, 2005); and (iii) it predominantly generates a scar tissue instead of fibrocartilage (Martinek et al, 2006). In a recent mediumterm follow-up, non-controlled case series involving 34 patients, Bulgheroni et al (2010) showed good to excellent clinical results after 5 years from a CMI implantation for a symptomatic deficiency of medial meniscal tissue. In particular, chondral surfaces had not further degenerated after placement of the CMI, and MRI signal had indicated a progressive maturation between 2 and 5 years after implantation, progressively resembling the low signal of a normal meniscus.…”