Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) combined with revision ACL reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tenodesis results in significantly improved outcomes, but patient-reported knee function is inferior compared to an isolated MAT.

PURPOSE

Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is a valuable option for postmeniscectomy syndrome in young and active patients, which can successfully improve symptoms, function and quality of life. This study aimed to report outcomes and complications in patients treated with isolated MAT or MAT combined with revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET).

METHODS

In total, 18 patients who were treated with MAT using a soft tissue fixation technique were retrospectively analysed. Patients were allocated into two groups, the isolated MAT group and the MAT plus revision ACLR + LET group (MAT+ group). Both groups were assessed using the following Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner Activity Scale, Lysholm score, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) statement.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 3.2 years and the mean age of patients was 29 (±7.6) years. Ten patients were treated with isolated MAT and eight patients were treated with MAT combined with revision ACLR and LET. No complications and no reoperations were reported. In both groups, all PROMs significantly improved postoperatively (p < 0.05), except for the Tegner score in the MAT+ group, which did not reach statistical significance (not significant [n.s.]). No significant difference was found postoperatively in PROMs between the MAT and the MAT+ group; however, differences in the KOOS Symptoms, Sports and Quality-of-life subscales reached the minimal clinically important threshold. Mean values were: IKDC 61.2 (±13.9) versus 64.7 (±23.2), KOOS Total 72.8 (±14.9) versus 68.0 (±16.7), Lysholm score 83.2 (±11) versus 84.2 (±8.7) and EQ-5D-5L 71.8 (±14.9) versus 72.2 (±22.4). Median values for the Tegner Activity Scale were 4 versus 3. PASS statement was negative in 37.5% of the MAT+ group in comparison to 20% of the MAT group (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

In terms of patient-reported outcomes, MAT is an effective and safe procedure, even when combined with revision ACLR + LET. Compared to the preoperative assessment, a significant improvement of the postoperative PROMs can be expected either when MAT is performed isolated or in combination with ACLR + LET. However, clinically important differences between the two groups can be noted in favour of the isolated MAT procedure, especially regarding symptoms and sporting activity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.