Search

Objective: Patients with meniscal tears reporting meniscal symptoms such as catching or locking have traditionally undergone arthroscopy. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether patients with meniscal tears who report meniscal symptoms have greater improvement with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) than physical therapy (PT)., Methods: We used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, which randomized participants with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and meniscal tear to APM or PT. The frequency of each meniscal symptom (clicking, catching, popping, intermittent locking, giving way, swelling) was measured at baseline and 6 months. We used linear regression models to determine whether the difference in improvement in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score at 6 months between patients treated with APM versus PT was modified by the presence of each meniscal symptom. We also determined the percentage of participants with resolution of meniscal symptoms by treatment group., Results: We included 287 participants. The presence (versus absence) of any of the meniscal symptoms did not modify the improvement in KOOS pain score between APM versus PT by >0.5 SD (all P interaction >0.05). APM led to greater resolution of intermittent locking and clicking than PT (locking 70% versus 46%, clicking 41% versus 25%). No difference in resolution of the other meniscal symptoms was observed., Conclusion: Meniscal symptoms were not associated with improved pain relief. Although symptoms of clicking and intermittent locking had a greater reduction in the APM group, the presence of meniscal symptoms in isolation should not inform clinical decisions surrounding APM versus PT in patients with meniscal tear and knee OA., (© 2021 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To estimate the risk of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based structural changes in knee osteoarthritis (OA) among individuals with meniscal tear and knee OA, using MRIs obtained at baseline and 18 and 60 months after randomization in a randomized controlled trial of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) versus physical therapy (PT)., Methods: We used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (METEOR) trial. MRIs were read using the MRI OA Knee Score (MOAKS). We used linear mixed-effects models to examine the association between treatment group and continuous MOAKS summary scores, and Poisson regression to assess categorical changes in knee joint structure. Analyses assessed changes in OA between baseline and month 18 and between months 18 and 60. We performed both intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses., Results: The analytic sample included 302 participants. For both treatment groups, more OA changes were seen during the early interval than during the later interval. ITT analysis revealed that, between baseline and month 18, APM was significantly associated with an increased risk of having a worsening cartilage surface area score, involving both any worsening across all knee joint subregions (risk ratio [RR] 1.35 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14, 1.61]) and the number of subregions damaged (RR 1.44 [95% CI 1.13, 1.85]) having a worsening effusion-synovitis score (RR 2.62 [95% CI 1.32, 5.21]), and having ≥1 additional subregion with osteophytes (RR 1.24 [95% CI 1.02, 1.50]). Significant associations were detected between months 18 and 60 only for having any subregion with a worsening osteophyte score (RR 1.28 [95% CI 1.04, 1.58])., Conclusion: These findings suggest that the association between APM and MRI-based structural changes in knee OA is most apparent during the initial 18 months after surgery. The reason for attenuation of this association over longer follow-up merits further investigation., (© 2022 American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: The utilization of meniscal repair techniques continues to evolve in an effort to maximize the rate of healing. Meniscal repair outcomes at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively appear to better represent the true failure rates. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature was conducted to assess the rate of failure at a minimum of 5 years after meniscal repair., Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the outcomes of meniscal repair at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. A standardized search and review strategy was utilized. Failure was defined as recurrent clinical symptoms or a meniscal reintervention to repair or resect the meniscus in any capacity, as defined by the study. When reported, outcomes were assessed relative to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) status, sex, age, and postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model., Results: A total of 27 studies of 1,612 patients and 1,630 meniscal repairs were included in this review and meta-analysis. The pooled overall failure rate was 22.6%, while the failure rate of modern repairs (excluding early-generation all-inside devices) was 19.5%. Medial repairs were significantly more likely to fail compared with lateral repairs (23.9% versus 12.6%, p = 0.04). Failure rates were similar for inside-out (14.2%) and modern all-inside repairs (15.8%). Early-generation all-inside devices had a significantly higher failure rate (30.2%) compared with modern all-inside devices (15.8%, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in meniscal failure rate between repairs with concomitant ACL reconstruction (21.2%) and repairs in ACL-intact knees (23.3%, p = 0.54)., Conclusions: Modern meniscal repair had an overall failure rate of 19.5% at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. Modern all-inside techniques appear to have improved the success rate of meniscal repair compared with use of early-generation all-inside devices. Lateral repairs were significantly more likely to be successful compared with medial repairs, while no difference was seen between patients undergoing meniscal repair with and without concomitant ACL reconstruction., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H20)., (Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health. This has been a successful intervention in patients with isolated tears and tears associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction have not been documented., Purpose: To examine the prevalence and 2-year operative success rate of meniscal repairs in the revision ACL setting., Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: All cases of revision ACL reconstruction with concomitant meniscal repair from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Two-year follow-up was obtained by phone and email to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred to either knee since the initial revision ACL reconstruction. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify the pathologic condition and subsequent treatment., Results: In total, 218 patients (18%) from 1205 revision ACL reconstructions underwent concurrent meniscal repairs. There were 235 repairs performed: 153 medial, 48 lateral, and 17 medial and lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 178; 76%) were performed with all-inside techniques. Two-year surgical follow-up was obtained on 90% (197/218) of the cohort. Overall, the meniscal repair failure rate was 8.6% (17/197) at 2 years. Of the 17 failures, 15 were medial (13 all-inside, 2 inside-out) and 2 were lateral (both all-inside). Four medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACL reconstruction., Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACL reconstruction setting does not have a high failure rate at 2-year follow-up. Failure rates for medial and lateral repairs were both <10% and consistent with success rates of primary ACL reconstruction meniscal repair. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears.

Objective: The present study was undertaken to evaluate changes in knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings over the course of 18 months in subjects with osteoarthritic change and meniscal tear treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) or nonoperatively with physical therapy (PT)., Methods: We used 18-month follow-up data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research Trial. MRI results were read with reference to the MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score. We focused on 18-month change in bone marrow lesions (BMLs), cartilage thickness, cartilage surface area, osteophyte size, effusion-synovitis, and Hoffa-synovitis. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess associations between MRI-based changes in each feature and treatment type., Results: A total of 351 subjects were randomized, and 225 had both baseline and 18-month MRI results. In both treatment groups, patients experienced substantial changes in several MRI-based markers. In 60% of the APM group, versus 33% of the PT group, cartilage surface area damage advanced in ≥2 subregions (adjusted odds ratio 4.2 [95% confidence interval 2.0-9.0). Patients who underwent APM also had greater advancement in scores for osteophytes and effusion-synovitis. We did not find significant associations between treatment type and change in cartilage thickness, BMLs, or Hoffa-synovitis., Conclusion: This cohort of patients with meniscal tear and osteoarthritis showed marked advancement in MRI-based features over 18 months. Patients treated with APM showed more advancement in some features compared to those treated nonoperatively. The clinical relevance of these early findings is unknown and requires further study., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To compare the transcriptome of articular cartilage from knees with meniscus tears to knees with end-stage osteoarthritis (OA)., Design: Articular cartilage was collected from the non-weight bearing medial intercondylar notch of knees undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM; N = 10, 49.7 ± 10.8 years, 50% females) for isolated medial meniscus tears and knees undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA; N = 10, 66.0 ± 7.6 years, 70% females) due to end-stage OA. Ribonucleic acid (RNA) preparation was subjected to SurePrint G3 human 8 × 60K RNA microarrays to probe differentially expressed transcripts followed by computational exploration of underlying biological processes. Real-time polymerase chain reaction amplification was performed on selected transcripts to validate microarray data., Results: We observed that 81 transcripts were significantly differentially expressed (45 elevated, 36 repressed) between APM and TKA samples (≥ 2 fold) at a false discovery rate of ≤ 0.05. Among these, CFD, CSN1S1, TSPAN11, CSF1R and CD14 were elevated in the TKA group, while CHI3L2, HILPDA, COL3A1, COL27A1 and FGF2 were highly expressed in APM group. A few long intergenic non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs), small nuclear RNAs (snoRNAs) and antisense RNAs were also differentially expressed between the two groups. Transcripts up-regulated in TKA cartilage were enriched for protein localization and activation, chemical stimulus, immune response, and toll-like receptor signaling pathway. Transcripts up-regulated in APM cartilage were enriched for mesenchymal cell apoptosis, epithelial morphogenesis, canonical glycolysis, extracellular matrix organization, cartilage development, and glucose catabolic process., Conclusions: This study suggests that APM and TKA cartilage express distinct sets of OA transcripts. The gene profile in cartilage from TKA knees represents an end-stage OA whereas in APM knees it is clearly earlier in the degenerative process., (Copyright © 2019 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Football puts athletes at risk for knee injuries such meniscus and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, which are associated with the development of osteoarthritis (OA). Previous knee surgery, player position, and body mass index (BMI) may be associated with knee OA., Hypothesis: In elite football players undergoing knee magnetic resonance imaging at the National Football League's Invitational Combine, the prevalence of knee OA is associated with previous knee surgery and BMI., Study Design: Retrospective cohort., Level of Evidence: Level 4., Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all participants of the National Football League Combine from 2005 to 2009 who underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the knee because of prior knee injury, surgery, or knee-related symptoms or concerning examination findings. Imaging studies were reviewed for evidence of OA. History of previous knee surgery-including ACL reconstruction, meniscal procedures, and articular cartilage surgery-and position were recorded for each athlete. BMI was calculated based on height and weight., Results: There was a higher prevalence of OA in knees with a history of previous knee surgery (23% vs 4.0%, P < 0.001). The prevalence of knee OA was 4.0% in those without previous knee surgery, 11% in those with a history of meniscus repair, 24% of those with a history of ACL reconstruction, and 27% of those with a history of partial meniscectomy. Among knees with a previous ACL reconstruction, the rate of OA doubled in tibiofemoral compartments in which meniscal surgery was performed. BMI >30 kg/m 2 was also associated with a higher risk of OA ( P = 0.007) but player position was not associated with knee OA., Conclusions: Previous knee surgery, particularly ACL reconstruction and partial meniscectomy, and elevated BMI are associated with knee OA in elite football players. Future research should investigate ways to minimize the risk of OA after knee surgery in these athletes., Clinical Relevance: Treatment of knee injuries in football athletes should consider chondroprotection, including meniscal preservation and cartilage repair, when possible.

Background: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) combined with physical therapy (PT) have yielded pain relief similar to that provided by PT alone in randomized trials of subjects with a degenerative meniscal tear. However, many patients randomized to PT received APM before assessment of the primary outcome. We sought to identify factors associated with crossing over to APM and to compare pain relief between patients who had crossed over to APM and those who had been randomized to APM., Methods: We used data from the MeTeOR (Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research) Trial of APM with PT versus PT alone in subjects ≥45 years old who had mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis and a degenerative meniscal tear. We assessed independent predictors of crossover to APM among those randomized to PT. We also compared pain relief at 6 months among those randomized to PT who crossed over to APM, those who did not cross over, and those originally randomized to APM., Results: One hundred and sixty-four subjects were randomized to and received APM and 177 were randomized to PT, of whom 48 (27%) crossed over to receive APM in the first 140 days after randomization. In multivariate analyses, factors associated with a higher likelihood of crossing over to APM among those who had originally been randomized to PT included a baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Score of ≥40 (risk ratio [RR] = 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00, 3.93) and symptom duration of <1 year (RR = 1.74; 95% CI = 0.98, 3.08). Eighty-one percent of subjects who crossed over to APM and 82% of those randomized to APM had an improvement of ≥10 points in their pain score at 6 months, as did 73% of those who were randomized to and received only PT., Conclusions: Subjects who crossed over to APM had presented with a shorter symptom duration and greater baseline pain than those who did not cross over from PT. Subjects who crossed over had rates of surgical success similar to those of the patients who had been randomized to surgery. Our findings also suggest that an initial course of rigorous PT prior to APM may not compromise surgical outcome., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., (Copyright © 2016 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess orthopaedic patient knowledge and perceptions about the meniscus, meniscal injury, and treatment to identify gaps in orthopaedic patients' understanding and to assess the outcomes most important to these patients., Methods: A 41-question survey was designed to measure knowledge and perception of meniscal tears regarding anatomy, function, surgical indications, operative techniques, risks, overall benefits of repair or removal, and recovery times. Study participants aged between 18 and 60 years were recruited from an academic orthopaedic sports medicine clinic regardless of their present complaint. Patients aged younger than 18 years were excluded., Results: We surveyed 253 individuals (132 men and 121 women), with a mean age of 38 years. Most respondents (62%) rated their knowledge about the meniscus as little or no knowledge. Participants answered between 49% and 50% of questions regardless of how they self-rated their knowledge base. There was no correlation between perceived knowledge and percent answered correctly or between level of knee injury/surgery exposure and percent answered correctly. Only 28% of respondents knew that partial meniscectomy is the most common type of surgical treatment for meniscal tears. The risk of osteoarthritis developing and the risk of further surgery were the major concerns regarding meniscus surgery. Those who had undergone a previous meniscus surgery performed better on factual questions regarding meniscus structure (P = .0006), function (P = .0001), mechanism of injury (P = .0001), and the need for surgery (P = .0001) than those who had not undergone previous meniscus surgery., Conclusions: Patients having undergone prior meniscus surgery have better knowledge of meniscus injury and treatment than those who have not had previous meniscus injury. Meniscus repair is believed to be the most common treatment rather than meniscectomy. The risk of needing additional surgery and the risk of arthritis developing after meniscus surgery are the main concerns among respondents., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Identifying risk factors for inferior outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is important for prognosis and future treatment., Hypothesis: Articular cartilage lesions and meniscus tears/treatment would predict International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (all 5 subscales), and Marx activity level at 6 years after ACLR., Study Design: Cohort study (prognosis); Level of evidence, 1., Methods: Between 2002 and 2004, a total of 1512 ACLR patients were prospectively enrolled and followed longitudinally, with the IKDC, KOOS, and Marx activity score completed at entry, 2 years, and 6 years. A logistic regression model was built incorporating variables from patient demographics, surgical technique, articular cartilage injuries, and meniscus tears/treatment to determine the predictors (risk factors) of IKDC and KOOS scores and Marx activity level at 6 years., Results: A minimum follow-up on 86% (1307/1512) of the cohort was completed at 6 years. The cohort was 56% male and had a median age of 23 years at the time of enrollment, with 76% reporting a noncontact injury mechanism. Incidence of concomitant injury at the time of surgery consisted of the following: articular cartilage (medial femoral condyle [MFC], 25%; lateral femoral condyle [LFC] 20%; medial tibial plateau [MTP], 6%; lateral tibial plateau [LTP], 12%; patella, 20%; trochlear, 9%) and meniscus (medial, 38%; lateral, 46%). Both articular cartilage lesions and meniscus tears were significant predictors of 6-year outcomes on the IKDC and KOOS. Grade 3 or 4 articular cartilage lesions (excluding patella) significantly reduced IKDC and KOOS scores at 6 years. The IKDC demonstrated worse outcomes with the presence of a grade 3 or 4 chondral lesion on the MFC, MTP, and LFC. Likewise, the KOOS score was negatively affected by cartilage injury. The sole significant predictor of reduced Marx activity level was the presence of a grade 4 lesion on the MFC. Lateral meniscus repairs did not correlate with inferior results, but medial meniscus repairs predicted worse IKDC and KOOS scores. Lateral meniscus tears left alone significantly improved prognosis. Small partial meniscectomies (<33%) on the medial meniscus fared worse; conversely, larger excisions (>50%) on either the medial or lateral menisci improved prognosis. Analogous to previous studies, other significant predictors of lower outcome scores were lower baseline scores, higher body mass index, lower education level, smoking, and anterior cruciate ligament revisions., Conclusion: Both articular cartilage injury and meniscus tears/treatment at the time of ACLR were significant predictors of IKDC and KOOS scores 6 years after ACLR. Similarly, having a grade 4 MFC lesion significantly reduced a patient's Marx activity level score at 6 years.

Background: Whether arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for symptomatic patients with a meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis results in better functional outcomes than nonoperative therapy is uncertain., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving symptomatic patients 45 years of age or older with a meniscal tear and evidence of mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis on imaging. We randomly assigned 351 patients to surgery and postoperative physical therapy or to a standardized physical-therapy regimen (with the option to cross over to surgery at the discretion of the patient and surgeon). The patients were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was the difference between the groups with respect to the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical-function score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms) 6 months after randomization., Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean improvement in the WOMAC score after 6 months was 20.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.9 to 23.9) in the surgical group and 18.5 (95% CI, 15.6 to 21.5) in the physical-therapy group (mean difference, 2.4 points; 95% CI, -1.8 to 6.5). At 6 months, 51 active participants in the study who were assigned to physical therapy alone (30%) had undergone surgery, and 9 patients assigned to surgery (6%) had not undergone surgery. The results at 12 months were similar to those at 6 months. The frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups., Conclusions: In the intention-to-treat analysis, we did not find significant differences between the study groups in functional improvement 6 months after randomization; however, 30% of the patients who were assigned to physical therapy alone underwent surgery within 6 months. (Funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00597012.).

Background: Meniscal repair offers the potential to avoid the long-term articular cartilage deterioration that has been shown to result after meniscectomy. Failure of the meniscal repair can occur several years postoperatively. Limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of meniscal repair exists., Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the outcomes of meniscal repair at a minimum of five years postoperatively. Pooling of data and meta-analysis with a random-effects model were performed to evaluate the results., Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of meniscal repair failure (reoperation or clinical failure) was 23.1% (131 of 566). The pooled rate of failure varied from 20.2% to 24.3% depending on the status of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), the meniscus repaired, and the technique utilized. The rate of failure was similar for the medial and the lateral meniscus as well as for patients with an intact and a reconstructed ACL., Conclusions: A systematic review of the outcomes of meniscal repair at greater than five years postoperatively demonstrated very similar rates of meniscal failure (22.3% to 24.3%) for all techniques investigated. The outcomes of meniscal repair at greater than five years postoperatively have not yet been reported for modern all-inside repair devices.

Background: Knees undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction typically have more intra-articular injuries than do knees undergoing primary reconstruction., Hypothesis: Previous partial meniscectomy (PM) is associated with a higher rate of chondral lesions at revision ACL reconstruction, whereas previous meniscal repair (MR) is not associated with a higher rate of chondral lesions at revision ACL reconstruction, compared with knees undergoing revision ACL with no previous meniscal surgery., Study Design: Cohort study (Prevalence); Level of evidence, 2., Methods: Data from a multicenter cohort was reviewed to determine the history of prior meniscal surgery (PM/MR) and the presence of grade II/III/IV chondral lesions at revision ACL reconstruction. The association between previous meniscal surgery and the incidence of chondral lesions was examined. Patient age was included as a covariate to determine if surgery type contributes predictive information independent of patient age., Results: The cohort included 725 ACL revision surgeries. Chondrosis was associated with patient age (P < .0001) and previous meniscal surgery (P < .0001). After adjusting for patient age, knees with previous PM were more likely to have chondrosis than knees with previous MR (P = .003) or no previous meniscal surgery (P < .0001). There was no difference between knees without previous meniscal surgery and knees with previous MR (P = .7). Previous partial meniscectomy was associated with a higher rate of chondrosis in the same compartment compared with knees without previous meniscal surgery (P < .0001) and knees with previous MR (P ≤ .03)., Conclusion: The status of articular cartilage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction relates to previous meniscal surgery independent of the effect of patient age. Previous partial meniscectomy is associated with a higher incidence of articular cartilage lesions, whereas previous meniscal repair is not. Although this association may reflect underlying differences in the knee at the time of prior surgery, it does suggest that meniscal repair is preferable when possible at the time of ACL reconstruction.

This study aimed to determine the incidence of meniscal tears and describe the tear morphology and selected treatment in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We also will discuss the potential market for future tissue engineering aimed at preserving meniscal function. A multicenter cohort of 1014 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction between January 2002 and December 2003 was evaluated. Data on patient demographics, presence of a meniscus tear at time of ACL reconstruction, tear morphology, and meniscal treatment were collected prospectively. Meniscal tears were categorized into 3 potential tissue engineering treatment strategies: all-biologic repair, advanced repair, and scaffold replacement. Of the knees, 36% had medial meniscal tears and 44% had lateral meniscal tears. Longitudinal tears were the most common tear morphology. The most frequent treatment method was partial meniscectomy. Thirty percent of medial meniscal tears and 10% of lateral meniscal tears are eligible for all-biologic repair; 35% of medial meniscal tears and 35% of lateral meniscal tears are eligible for an advanced repair technique; and 35% of medial meniscal tears and 55% of lateral meniscal tears are eligible for scaffold replacement. Although meniscal preservation is generally accepted in the treatment of meniscal tears, most tears in this cohort were not repairable, despite contemporary methods. The results of this cohort will hopefully stimulate and focus future research and development of new tissue engineering strategies for meniscus repair.

Background: The meniscal flounce sign is a fold in the free, nonanchored inner edge of the medial meniscus that can be noted during routine arthroscopy of the knee., Hypothesis: The meniscal flounce sign can be a significant indicator of the presence or absence of medial meniscus injury., Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 4., Methods: One hundred sixty-eight patients were prospectively evaluated at the time of the arthroscopy for the presence or absence of the arthroscopic meniscal flounce sign. These results were then correlated with the presence of medial meniscus tears., Results: The presence of the meniscal flounce sign has a positive predictive value of a normal meniscus of 0.97 (63/65). The absence of the meniscal flounce sign has a positive predictive value of an abnormal meniscus of 0.98 (101/103). Specificity is 98%, and sensitivity is 97%., Conclusion: The absence of the arthroscopic meniscal flounce sign is a sensitive and specific predictor of the presence of medial meniscus tears that should alert the surgeon to probe carefully for an occult medial meniscus tear.

Background: Establishing the validity of classification schemes is a crucial preparatory step that should precede multicenter studies. There are no studies investigating the reproducibility of arthroscopic classification of meniscal pathology among multiple surgeons at different institutions., Hypothesis: Arthroscopic classification of meniscal pathology is reliable and reproducible and suitable for multicenter studies that involve multiple surgeons., Study Design: Multirater agreement study., Methods: Seven surgeons reviewed a video of 18 meniscal tears and completed a meniscal classification questionnaire. Multirater agreement was calculated based on the proportion of agreement, the kappa coefficient, and the intraclass correlation coefficient., Results: There was a 46% agreement on the central/peripheral location of tears (kappa = 0.30), an 80% agreement on the depth of tears (kappa = 0.46), a 72% agreement on the presence of a degenerative component (kappa = 0.44), a 71% agreement on whether lateral tears were central to the popliteal hiatus (kappa = 0.42), a 73% agreement on the type of tear (kappa = 0.63), an 87% agreement on the location of the tear (kappa = 0.61), and an 84% agreement on the treatment of tears (kappa = 0.66). There was considerable agreement among surgeons on length, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.78, 95% confidence interval of 0.57 to 0.92, and P < .001., Conclusions: Arthroscopic grading of meniscal pathology is reliable and reproducible., Clinical Relevance: Surgeons can reliably classify meniscal pathology and agree on treatment, which is important for multicenter trials.

One hundred six patients who underwent high field strength magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent arthroscopy of the knee were evaluated to determine the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting meniscal tear reparability. Each scan was independently read by three examiners with varying degrees of expertise: a musculoskeletal radiologist, a senior orthopaedic surgeon, and a general radiologist. Each suspected tear was characterized by its morphologic type, maximum length, and minimum distance from the meniscosynovial junction. A prediction was then made of whether the tear was reparable. There were 115 meniscal tears noted in the 106 patients studied. The examiners' ability to correctly estimate tear type was only fair, with correct estimates made only 14% to 67% of the time. The overall correlation of the three examiners to correctly predict the method of treatment was fair. The average accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting meniscal reparability were 74%, 29%, 89%, 50%, and 80%, respectively; for predicting meniscectomy, these values were 69%, 68%, 75%, 90%, and 43%, respectively. There were no significant differences between the three examiners in the accuracy of their treatment predictions. The results of this study suggest that magnetic resonance imaging is only moderately reliable for the prediction of meniscus reparability. In addition, the training of the reader does not appear to significantly influence the results.