Large medial meniscus extrusion and varus are poor prognostic factors of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for degenerative medial meniscus lesions.

BACKGROUND: The indications and efficacy after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) for degenerative medial meniscus lesions (DMMLs) have been controversial. The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of unfavorable clinical and radiologic outcomes after APM for DMMLs and to choose appropriate indications and improve treatment efficacy. METHODS: A total of 86 patients with DMMLs undergoing APM were retrospectively reviewed. The mean follow-up time was 32.1 months. Clinical outcomes (including Lysholm score) and radiographic results (including Kellgren-Lawrence grade (K-L grade: 0/1/2/3/4) were evaluated at preoperative and final follow-up. Preoperative prognostic factors, including gender, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), Hip-Knee-Ankle (HKA), Medial Posterior Tibial Slope (MPTS), Medial Meniscus Extrusion (MME), K-L grade, occupational kneeling, and cartilaginous condition (Outerbridge grade ≤ 2, VS ≥ 3), for relatively unfavorable (fair or poor grade) Lysholm and progression of K-L grade, were investigated by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve was used to identify a cutoff point for the extent of medial meniscal extrusion that was associated with the final Lysholm score. RESULTS: A significantly improved postoperative Lysholm score (84.5 ± 9.7) compared with the preoperative score (63.8 ± 9.3) (P < 0.001), but a progression of K-L grade (20/36/30/0/0-15/27/25/19/0) (P < 0.001). The adverse prognostic factor of Lysholm score was the advancing age (OR 1.109, P = 0.05) and HKA (OR 0.255, P < 0.001). The adverse prognostic factor of K-L grade progression was MME (OR 10.327, P < 0.001). The cutoff point for the relative value of preoperative medial meniscal extrusion associated with relatively unfavorable Lysholm scores was 2.05 mm (Area = 0.8668, P value < 0.0001, Sensitivity = 62.16%, Specificity = 93.88%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically, varus alignment, large MME, and older age were found to predict a poor prognosis after APM for DMMLs. The preoperative extent of MME can be used as a predictive factor for osteoarthritis in APM. Patients with varus and MME should avoid APM. High tibial osteotomy may be an effective treatment strategy.

Survivorship Analysis and Clinical Outcomes of Transtibial Pullout Repair for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tears: A 5- to 10-Year Follow-up Study.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the clinical outcomes and mid- to long-term survival rates in patients undergoing transtibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2011, patients with MMPRTs who had been followed for at least 5 years after undergoing transtibial pullout repair were recruited. Participants were identified using medical records and information in a prospectively collected database. Clinical outcomes were assessed based on a comparison of patient preoperative Lysholm scores and their scores at the final follow-up. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to investigate the survival rates of repair procedures. Clinical failures were defined as cases requiring conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or having final Lysholm score <65 or less than their preoperative scores. RESULTS: Overall, 91 patients (mean age, 58.7 ± 9.7 years) were included: the mean follow-up duration was 84.8 ± 13.8 months. Among these patients, the mean Lysholm score improved significantly from 51.8 ± 7.9 preoperatively to 83.0 ± 11.1 at the final follow-up (P < .001). Overall, 4 patients failed due to conversion to TKA (n = 1) or having final Lysholm scores <65 or less than the preoperative scores (n = 3). The overall Kaplan-Meier probabilities of survival after repair were 99% at 5 years, 98% at 6 years, 95% at 7 years, and 92% at 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with MMPRTs, transtibial pullout repair demonstrated a high clinical survival rate and the patients demonstrated clinical improvement, based on mid- and long-term follow-up examinations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective uncontrolled case series.