Download PDF
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2274-6914
Original Article

Accelerated versus Standard Rehabilitation after Meniscus Allograft Transplantation in the Knee

Kylee Rucinski 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
James P. Stannard 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Cory Crecelius
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Clayton Nuelle
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
James L. Cook 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
2   Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) is a proven treatment option for patients with symptomatic irreparable meniscus deficiency. When patients are adherent to prescribed postoperative restriction and rehabilitation protocols, outcomes after MAT are considered good to excellent. However, nonadherence to standard protocols is common and can be associated with undesirable outcomes and patient dissatisfaction. Based on demonstrated safety for early weight-bearing following MAT in conjunction with significant advances in graft preservation and surgical techniques, our joint preservation center implemented a shift in practice toward accelerated weight-bearing following MAT and designed this study to test the hypothesis that accelerated rehabilitation would be associated with superior adherence, patient-reported outcomes, and patient satisfaction, without diminishing patient safety, when compared with standard rehabilitation. Patients were included for analyses when they had undergone fresh or fresh-frozen MAT using a double bone plug technique for treatment of medial or lateral meniscus deficiency and had at least 1-year treatment outcomes recorded. The results of this study revealed that patients who were prescribed accelerated rehabilitation after MAT were significantly more adherent than patients who were prescribed standard rehabilitation and reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in knee pain and function for at least 1-year following MAT, whereas those in the standard cohort did not. While not statistically different, treatment failure rate was lower in the accelerated rehabilitation cohort when compared with the standard rehabilitation cohort (11 vs. 29%). Importantly, initial outcomes for revision MAT were associated with short-term success in all the patients who opted for this option in the study population. These data suggest that accelerated weight-bearing after MAT is safe, promotes patient adherence, and is associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported knee pain and function at early and mid-term follow-up.

Keywords

meniscus allograft transplantation - weight-bearing - patient-reported outcomes


Publication History

Received: 19 October 2023

Accepted: 20 February 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
22 February 2024

Article published online:
14 March 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 van der Wal RJP, Thomassen BJW, van Arkel ERA. Long-term clinical outcome of open meniscal allograft transplantation. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (11) 2134-2139
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Fanelli D, Mercurio M, Gasparini G, Galasso O. Predictors of meniscal allograft transplantation outcome: a systematic review. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (03) 303-321
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Ha JK, Jang HW, Jung JE, Cho SI, Kim JG. Clinical and radiologic outcomes after meniscus allograft transplantation at 1-year and 4-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (11) 1424-1429
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Stone KR, Adelson WS, Pelsis JR, Walgenbach AW, Turek TJ. Long-term survival of concurrent meniscus allograft transplantation and repair of the articular cartilage: a prospective two- to 12-year follow-up report. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (07) 941-948
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Grassi A, Bailey JR, Filardo G, Samuelsson K, Zaffagnini S, Amendola A. Return to sport activity after meniscal allograft transplantation: at what level and at what cost? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Health 2019; 11 (02) 123-133
    Google Scholar
  • 6 A Cavendish P, DiBartola AC, Everhart JS, Kuzma S, Kim WJ, Flanigan DC. Meniscal allograft transplantation: a review of indications, techniques, and outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (11) 3539-3550
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Schreiner AJ, Stannard JP, Cook CR. et al. Initial clinical outcomes comparing frozen versus fresh meniscus allograft transplants. Knee 2020; 27 (06) 1811-1820
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Gilat R, Cole BJ. Meniscal allograft transplantation: indications, techniques, outcomes. Arthroscopy 2020; 36 (04) 938-939
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Figueroa F, Figueroa D, Calvo R, Vaisman A, Espregueira-Mendes J. Meniscus allograft transplantation: indications, techniques and outcomes. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4 (04) 115-120
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Frank RM, Cole BJ. Meniscus transplantation. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (04) 443-450
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Lubowitz JH, Verdonk PCM, Reid III JB, Verdonk R. Meniscus allograft transplantation: a current concepts review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2007; 15 (05) 476-492
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Rucinski K, Cook JL, Crecelius CR, Stucky R, Stannard JP. Effects of compliance with procedure-specific postoperative rehabilitation protocols on initial outcomes after osteochondral and meniscal allograft transplantation in the knee. Orthop J Sports Med 2019;7(11):2325967119884291
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Hurley ET, Davey MS, Jamal MS. et al. High rate of return-to-play following meniscal allograft transplantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (11) 3561-3568
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Chalmers PN, Karas V, Sherman SL, Cole BJ. Return to high-level sport after meniscal allograft transplantation. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (03) 539-544
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Ahmed AF, Rinaldi J, Noorzad AS, Zikria BA. Return to sports following meniscal allograft transplantation is possible but remains questionable: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2022; 38 (04) 1351-1361
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Cvetanovich GL, Christian DR, Garcia GH. et al. Return to sport and patient satisfaction after meniscal allograft transplantation. Arthroscopy 2020; 36 (09) 2456-2463
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Hergan D, Thut D, Sherman O, Day MS. Meniscal allograft transplantation. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (01) 101-112
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Elattar M, Dhollander A, Verdonk R, Almqvist KF, Verdonk P. Twenty-six years of meniscal allograft transplantation: is it still experimental? A meta-analysis of 44 trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (02) 147-157
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Searle H, Asopa V, Coleman S, McDermott I. The results of meniscal allograft transplantation surgery: what is success?. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020; 21 (01) 159
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Rue JPH, Yanke AB, Busam ML, McNickle AG, Cole BJ. Prospective evaluation of concurrent meniscus transplantation and articular cartilage repair: minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (09) 1770-1778
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Cook JL, Rucinski K, Crecelius CR, Stannard JP. Initial outcomes after unicompartmental tibiofemoral bipolar osteochondral and meniscal allograft transplantation in the knee using MOPS-preserved fresh (Viable) tissues. Am J Sports Med 2023; 51 (03) 596-604
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Rosso F, Bisicchia S, Bonasia DE, Amendola A. Meniscal allograft transplantation: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (04) 998-1007
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Stollsteimer GT, Shelton WR, Dukes A, Bomboy AL. Meniscal allograft transplantation: a 1- to 5-year follow-up of 22 patients. Arthroscopy 2000; 16 (04) 343-347
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Jauregui JJ, Wu ZD, Meredith S, Griffith C, Packer JD, Henn III RF. How should we secure our transplanted meniscus? A meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (09) 2285-2290
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Bhattacharyya R, Krishnan H, Bausch N. et al. Bone bridge technique for lateral meniscal allograft transplantation: no difference in clinical outcome compared to the soft tissue technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31 (10) 4162-4170
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Kelly BT, Potter HG, Deng XH. et al. Meniscal allograft transplantation in the sheep knee: evaluation of chondroprotective effects. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (09) 1464-1477
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Spang JT, Dang ABC, Mazzocca A. et al. The effect of medial meniscectomy and meniscal allograft transplantation on knee and anterior cruciate ligament biomechanics. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (02) 192-201
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Schreiner AJ, Stannard JP, Cook CR. et al. Comparison of meniscal allograft transplantation techniques using a preclinical canine model. J Orthop Res 2021; 39 (01) 154-164
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Kelly SR, Stannard JT, Reddy J, Cook JL, Stannard JP, Nuelle CW. Meniscus allograft transplantation with bone plugs using knotless all-suture anchors and cortical button suspensory fixation. Arthrosc Tech 2023; 12 (10) e1707-e1714
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Rucinski K, Stucky R, Crecelius CR, Stannard JP, Cook JL. Effects of patient assessment and education by an integrated care team on postoperative adherence and failure rates after osteochondral allograft and meniscal allograft transplantation in the knee. Orthop J Sports Med 2023;11(05):23259671231160780
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Schalet BD, Hays RD, Jensen SE, Beaumont JL, Fries JF, Cella D. Validity of PROMIS physical function measured in diverse clinical samples. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 73: 112-118
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Higgins LD, Taylor MK, Park D. et al; International Knee Documentation Committee. Reliability and validity of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form. Joint Bone Spine 2007; 74 (06) 594-599
    Google Scholar
  • 33 O'Connor CM, Ring D. Correlation of Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) with other Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Arch Bone Jt Surg 2019; 7 (04) 303-306
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Delgado DA, Lambert BS, Boutris N. et al. Validation of digital visual analog scale pain scoring with a traditional paper-based visual analog scale in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2018; 2 (03) e088
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Haff RE, Stoltzfus J, Lucente VR, Murphy M. The Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ-8): a validated tool for assessment of patient satisfaction following surgery to correct prolapse and/or incontinence. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18 (06) S49-S50
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Luo W, Ali MS, Limb R, Cornforth C, Perry DC. Use of the PROMIS mobility score in assessing function in adolescents and adults previously affected by childhood hip disease. Bone Jt Open 2021; 2 (12) 1089-1095
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Ogura T, Ackermann J, Mestriner AB, Merkely G, Gomoll AH. The minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit in the patient-reported outcome measures of patients undergoing osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. Cartilage 2021; 12 (01) 42-50
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Okoroha KR, Lu Y, Nwachukwu BU. et al. How should we define clinically significant improvement on Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System test for patients undergoing knee meniscal surgery?. Arthroscopy 2020; 36 (01) 241-250
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Su L, Garcia-Mansilla I, Kelley B. et al. Clinical outcomes of meniscal allograft transplantation with respect to the minimal clinically important difference. Am J Sports Med 2022; 50 (12) 3440-3446
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Wang D, Chang B, Coxe FR. et al. Clinically meaningful improvement after treatment of cartilage defects of the knee with osteochondral grafts. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (01) 71-81
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Winterstein AP, McGuine TA, Carr KE, Hetzel SJ. Comparison of IKDC and SANE outcome measures following knee injury in active female patients. Sports Health 2013; 5 (06) 523-529
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Parkinson B, Smith N, Asplin L, Thompson P, Spalding T. Factors predicting meniscal allograft transplantation failure. Orthop J Sports Med 2016;4(08):2325967116663185
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Kunze KN, Davie RA, Ramkumar PN, Chahla J, Nwachukwu BU, Williams III RJ. Risk factors for graft failure after meniscal allograft transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med 2023;11(06):23259671231160296
    Google Scholar
  • 44 McCormick F, Harris JD, Abrams GD. et al. Survival and reoperation rates after meniscal allograft transplantation: analysis of failures for 172 consecutive transplants at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (04) 892-897
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Jiménez-Garrido C, Gómez-Cáceres A, Espejo-Reina MJ. et al. Obesity and meniscal transplant failure: a retrospective cohort study. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (03) 267-272
    Google Scholar