Super Jonathan T, LaPrade Robert F, Robinson James, Parker David A, DePhillipo Nicholas, Moatshe Gilbert, Beaufils Philippe, Murray Iain R
Department of Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Twin Cities Orthopedics, Edina, Minnesota, USA.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2025 Mar 27. doi: 10.1002/ksa.12634.
The aim of this study was to carry out a scoping review to investigate the use of biologic augmentation strategies for arthroscopic meniscal repair.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O'Malley frameworks were followed. The studies were obtained and screened, with inclusion criteria comprising clinical studies evaluating the biologic augmentation of arthroscopic meniscal repair, systematic reviews, opinion pieces, and consensus statements. Studies involving any biologic therapy were included and were not limited to geographical location, participant age group, or sex. Data were extracted and presented as a descriptive analysis and thematic summary.
A total of 1135 studies were initially identified, and 125 met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Sixty-six (52.8%) of these studies were published in the last 5 years, and 50.4% (63) originated from the United States. Most of the evidence was either Level IV or V (87 articles, 69.6%). The most frequently studied biological augmentation technique was the use of platelet-rich plasma (58 articles, 46.4%).
There is diverse use of biologic therapies for the augmentation of meniscal repairs without the presence of high-quality evidence to clearly define indications and usage. Further research priorities include defining which meniscal tear types and locations might benefit from specific biologic augmentation techniques, as well as outcome measures and diagnostic modalities to detect the success of these interventions.
Level IV.
