Similar clinical outcomes following collagen or polyurethane meniscal scaffold implantation: a systematic review.

purposeThe purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature in an effort to assess specific clinical outcomes following meniscal scaffold implantation using the two available scaffolds: Collagen Meniscal Implant (CMI) and the Actifit polyurethane meniscal scaffold.

methodsA systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to find studies evaluating clinical outcomes of patients undergoing meniscal scaffold implantation. Search terms used were "meniscus", "meniscal", "scaffold", and "implant". Studies were evaluated based on scaffold type, treatment failure rates, patient-reported outcome scores, concomitant procedures, and radiological findings. Radiological findings were recorded using the Genovese scale to assess morphology and signal intensity and the Yulish score to assess articular cartilage.

resultsNineteen studies (1 level I, 1 level II, 17 level IV evidence) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 658 patients (347 Actifit, 311 CMI). The overall average follow-up was 45 months. Treatment failure occurred in 9.9% of patients receiving the Actifit scaffold at a mean follow-up of 40 months and 6.7% of patients receiving CMI at a mean follow-up of 44 months (n.s.). However, the rate of failure ranged from 0 to 31.8% amongst the included studies with a variable definition of failure. Additionally, overlapping patients and presence of concomitant surgeries such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) may have a significant influence on these results. Outcomes for the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Lysholm knee score, and Tegner activity score improved from preoperatively to latest follow-up in both groups, while the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and International Knee Documentation Committee scores improved from preoperatively to latest follow-up for Actifit scaffold patients. Overall, patients receiving CMI scaffolds had higher grades for Genovese morphology and signal intensity when compared to Actifit scaffold patients.

conclusionPatients undergoing meniscal scaffold implantation with either CMI or Actifit scaffold can both be expected to experience improvement in clinical outcomes when used in association with concomitant procedures such as ACLR and HTO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review.