Search

Purpose: Meniscal injuries are common in the young and active population. There is increasing utilization of surgical interventions like meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) to restore the protective function of menisci following injury leading to meniscal deficiency. Extensive research and publications exist on the management of meniscal injury and the sequalae of meniscal deficiency. However, a comprehensive synthesis of the existing evidence through an umbrella review is lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by providing a current examination of the literature on MAT. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR‐2 tool. Results: A total of 41 studies were included in the review, with most published within the last decade. The majority of studies (56.1%) received a 'Critically Low' confidence rating, 26.8% were rated as 'Low', and only 14.6% were rated as 'High' confidence. From the included studies, 51.2% reported on PROMs, with the Lysholm score being the most common. Transplant failure and reoperation rate were reported in 34.1% and 19.5% of studies respectively. Studies on MAT reported favourable short‐term outcomes in terms of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) but were limited by the lack of randomized control trials and consistent comparison groups. Conclusions: This umbrella review highlights an increase in interest in MAT but underscores the need for higher‐quality reviews with standardized reporting and rigorous methodologies. Future research should focus on long‐term outcomes, optimal surgical techniques, patient selection criteria and risk factors for transplant failure. There is also a need for more studies focusing on MAT in pediatric populations. Overall, this review provides a comprehensive assessment of the current state of research in MAT and identifies areas for improvement in future studies. Level of Evidence: Level IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Meniscal injuries are common in knee surgery and often require preservation techniques to prevent secondary osteoarthritis. Despite advancements in repair techniques, some patients undergo partial meniscectomy, which can lead to postmeniscectomy syndrome. To address these challenges, meniscal substitution techniques like scaffolds have been developed. However, a comprehensive synthesis of the existing evidence through an umbrella review is lacking. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR‐2 tool. Results: A total of 17 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Most studies focused on the use of collagen‐based scaffolds, with fewer studies evaluating synthetic scaffolds. The majority of studies (52.9%) were rated as having 'Critically Low' overall confidence, with only one study (5.9%) rated as 'High' confidence and most studies exhibiting methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes and lack of long‐term follow‐up. Despite these limitations, the majority of studies reported positive short‐term outcomes, including pain relief and functional improvement, following scaffold implantation. However, some studies noted a relatively high failure rate. Radiographically, outcomes also varied, with some studies reporting morphological deterioration of the implant seen on MRI, while others noted possible chondroprotective effects. Conclusions: Meniscal scaffold‐based approaches show promise in the management of meniscal deficiency; however, the current evidence is limited by methodological shortcomings. One notable gap in the literature is the lack of clear guidelines for patient selection and surgical technique. Future research should focus on conducting well‐designed randomized controlled trials with long‐term follow‐up to further elucidate the benefits and indications of these techniques in clinical practice. Additionally, efforts should be made to develop consensus guidelines to standardize the use of meniscal scaffolds and improve patient outcomes. Despite limited availability, synthesizing the literature on meniscal scaffold‐based approaches is crucial for understanding research, guiding clinical decisions and informing future directions. Level of Evidence: Level IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]