Search

Purpose Methods Results Conclusion Level of Evidence To perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the existing literature on meniscal centralisation procedures, analysing its impact on meniscal extrusion, joint biomechanics and clinical and radiological outcome measures.The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase were used to perform a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses criteria. Biomechanical studies on healthy animal or human cadaveric knee joints that assessed meniscal extrusion or tibiofemoral contact mechanics (contact area and pressure) following centralization for meniscal pathologies were included. For clinical studies, those that prospectively or retrospectively assessed patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), postoperative knee motion, complications and radiological extrusion following centralization for meniscal pathologies were included.Fifteen studies were included in the analysis, comprising eight biomechanical, six clinical and one both. There were 92 knee specimens for biomechanical testing, of which 40 were human cadaveric and 52 porcine models. Biomechanical data revealed centralization to be commonly performed for posterior meniscal root tears and significantly reduced extrusion and contact pressure whilst improving contact area following a tear (p < 0.00001). Centralization restored extrusion to that of the native knee at all flexion angles described (0–90°, p = 0.25) and, compared to the torn state, brought tibiofemoral contact mechanics 3.2–5.0 times closer to the native state. Clinical data showed that 158 patients underwent centralization for extrusion. It improved postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score (KOOS) (p = 0.006) and Lysholm scores (p < 0.00001) at 25.0 months, maintained extrusion reduction at 17.1 months (p < 0.00001) and preserved knee motion.Centralisation for various meniscal injuries associated with extrusion can reduce meniscal extrusion and improve joint biomechanics, along with clinical and radiological outcomes. Existing evidence is still scarce and exhibits a notable amount of methodological heterogeneity.Systematic review of Level IV evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]