2025 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster
Global Insights On Biologic Augmentation Techniques In Meniscal Repair: A Survey Of Current Practice Amongst The Menin Study Group
James R. Robinson, MBBS, FRCS(Tr & Orth), MS, Bristol UNITED KINGDOM
David A. Parker, MBBS, BMedSc, FRACS, Sydney, NSW AUSTRALIA
Philippe Beaufils, MD, Versailles FRANCE
Iain Robert Murray, MD, PhD, Edinburgh UNITED KINGDOM
Gilbert Moatshe, MD, PhD, Oslo NORWAY
Filippo Familiari, MD, Prof., Catanzaro ITALY
Robert F. LaPrade, MD, PhD, Edina, MN UNITED STATES
Knee Specialists , Bristol, UNITED KINGDOM
FDA Status Not Applicable
Summary
A wide range of biologic augmentation techniques are used with the majority of MenIN surgeons using multiple techniques particularly for complex meniscal tear types. MMarrow venting of the intercondylar notch to release biological agents similar to those released by an ACL tunnel reaming was the commonest technique used
ePosters will be available shortly before Congress
Abstract
Background
There is diverse use of different biologic techniques for the augmentation of meniscal repair, but a paucity of high-quality evidence to define indications and usage. The Meniscus International Network (MenIN) Study Group constitutes an international research consortium of experienced sports knee surgeons, with a dedicated focus on meniscal pathologies, aiming to combine experience and data to facilitate the formulation of recommendations for the broader sport trauma community.
Methods
A 12-question multiple-choice online survey was distributed to the MenIN study group. It was designed to address the use of different biologic augmentation techniques for the repair of specific meniscal tear types, both in isolation and when associated with an ACL reconstruction (ACLR).
Results
Forty-one surgeons completed the survey with 42% from Europe, 18% from North America, 10% from Latin America, 21% from Asia and smaller percentages from Africa and Oceania.
For isolated meniscal body tears the majority of surgeons used a biologic augmentation technique depending on tear type, varying between 79% for simple vertical tears to 91% for horizonal cleavage tears in young athletic patients. Marrow venting of the intercondylar notch was the commonest technique used (55-74% of surgeons depending on tear type), followed by meniscal/synovial rasping (50—67%) and meniscal trephination (38-43%). Seventy percent of surgeons used multiple augmentation techniques for the repair of complex tear types. Platelet rich plasma (PRP) was used by 10-19% of surgeons depending on the meniscus tear type.
For meniscal repairs at the time of ACLR, 45-62% of surgeons used meniscal rasping and 35-45% did not use an augmentation technique depending on the meniscal tear type.
For meniscal root repairs, 64% did not use a biologic augmentation technique for isolated tears and 74% did not when performed with an ACLR.
Conclusion
Whilst there is variability as to the use of biologic augmentation techniques for meniscal repair, most surgeons in the MenIN group augment isolated meniscal repairs, with the majority using multiple techniques, particularly for complex tears. Marrow venting of the intercondylar notch to release biological agents similar to those released by an ACL tunnel reaming, was the commonest technique used. For concomitant meniscal repair and ACL reconstruction, rasping at the tear site was the most frequently used augmentation technique. This survey may help define further research into which meniscal tear types and locations might benefit from specific biologic augmentation techniques.