Revision of meniscal transplants: long-term clinical follow-up

Abstract

The clinical results after revised meniscal transplantation by means of knee prosthesis are highly variable with a tendency to have a lower score than patients with a primary knee prosthesis. Patients who underwent a revision of their meniscal allograft transplantation by means of a knee arthroplasty still had a significant better clinical outcome than prior to the meniscal allograft transplantation. There were no prognostic factors found by which one can determine whether a meniscal allograft will have a good survival or not.

Long-term Subjective, Clinical, and Radiographic Outcome Evaluation of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation in the Knee

“…No prognostic factors could be identified leading to more rapid failure when preoperative clinical status, cartilage damage, or concomitant procedures were considered. 15 Generally speaking, very good results concerning pain diminution and improvement of general health and functional outcome are seen after MAT. These results are the most important parameters to evaluate the effect of the intervention.…”

Should the meniscal height be considered for preoperative sizing in meniscal transplantation?

“…Although most studies have shown good short‐ and medium‐term results, long‐term evidence shows that the procedure is not curative, and progression of osteoarthrosis is observed. Patients then must be warned about the possibility of requiring in the future another surgical procedure in the knee [26, 27].…”

Meniscal allograft transplantation. Part 2: systematic review of transplant timing, outcomes, return to competition, associated procedures, and prevention of osteoarthritis

“…Despite these limitations, it can be concluded from the available literature that MAT produces good outcomes in the long term and this procedure is, therefore, worthwhile and justified in well‐selected individuals, whenever any associated condition is concomitantly or beforehand corrected. Interestingly, Verbruggen et al [49] reported the revision of MAT in the long‐term follow‐up. Eighty‐nine transplants in 87 patients were performed, and at a mean of 16.2 years follow‐up, 68 transplants in 68 patients survived and the rest had to be converted to knee arthroplasty because of progression of osteoarthritis.…”