4.3 Article

Meniscal scaffolds: Early experience and review of the literature

Journal

KNEE
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 760-765

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.01.006

Keywords

Meniscal scaffold; Actifit; Menaflex; Meniscectomy; Meniscal reconstruction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Meniscal scaffold implants support the in-growth of new meniscus like tissue with the aim of alleviating post-meniscectomy knee pain and preventing further articular cartilage degeneration. Patients and methods: Twenty-three patients underwent meniscal scaffold implantation (14 medial, 9 lateral) with either the Menaflex (ReGen Biologics) (n = 12) or Actifit (Orteq) (n = 11) scaffolds. Minimum follow-up was] year with a mean of 24.1 months (18-27) for the Menaflex and 14.7 months (12-18) for the Actifit groups. Mean age at surgery was 35 years (17-47) with a mean Outerbridge grade of 1.9 in the affected compartment. Eight (36%) underwent concurrent osteotomy, ligament reconstruction or microfracture of the tibial plateau. KOOS, Lysholm, Tegner activity and IKDC scores were collected pre-operatively and at six-month interval post-surgery. Assessment of the reconstruction was obtained with MRI scanning and arthroscopy. One scaffold tore and was revised at 19 months post-operatively. Results: Twenty-one out of 23 (91.3%) had a significant improvement in knee scores when compared to pre-surgery levels at latest follow-up. Second-look arthroscopy in 14 at 1-year post-implantation showed variable amounts of regenerative tissue. There was no progression in chondral wear noted on repeat MRI scanning. Conclusion: Treatment with meniscal scaffold implants can provide good pain relief for the post-meniscectomy knee following partial meniscectomy. Longer follow-up is required to ascertain whether they also prevent the progressive chondral wear associated with a post-meniscectomy knee. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available