Authors’ Response:
We thank Dr Filbay for her letter and comments. We agree that the articles Dr Filbay brought to our attention provide useful additional evidence about potential outcomes of nonoperatively managed patients, but the data do not alter our conclusion that the available evidence suggests meniscus repair should be adopted as the preferred initial intervention for medial meniscus root tears.1,4,5
Our search terms for our systematic review were included in our ‘‘Methods.’’ As published, our search terms were (‘‘meniscal’’[All Fields]) AND (‘‘plant roots’’[MeSH Terms] OR (‘‘plant’’[All Fields] AND ‘‘roots’’[All Fields]) OR ‘‘plant roots’’[All Fields] OR ‘‘root’’[All Fields]) AND
(‘‘therapy’’[Subheading] OR ‘‘therapy’’[All Fields] OR ‘‘treatment’’[All Fields] OR ‘‘therapeutics’’[MeSH Terms] OR ‘‘therapeutics’’[All Fields]). Unfortunately, neither of these articles was identified because ‘‘meniscal’’ was not included in the MeSH terms. While including these studies would have been helpful, they were not identified for indexing reasons, as stated in our ‘‘Limitations’’ section. In addition, both of these studies do not provide sufficient clarity about our key effectiveness parameter, osteoarthritis (OA) progression. Neogi et al,5 in Table 5, provide information about the number of patients in different Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grades at baseline and final follow-up. This information suggests at least 9 patients (27.3%) progressed by one or more K-L grades and thus developed OA according to our criteria.But the way the information is presented does not support an unequivocal assessment of the actual proportion of patients who progressed by one or more K-L grades. It might well be higher than 27.3%. The second study, Lim et al,4 does not present data about OA progression according to the criteria used for our definition in the analysis. However, the reported 2 observed total knee replacement (TKR) cases suggest that at least these 2 patients developed OA before undergoing TKR. Even using these ‘‘best case’’ assumptions for the studies of Neogi et al and Lim et al, and pooling them with the Krych data would lead to a computed annual rate of OA development of 15.3%, more than twice as high as the rate for repair of 7.2%.3-5 Furthermore, the 2 TKR cases in the Lim et al study suggest a best case TKR rate of 6.7% at 36-month follow-up, with corresponding freedom from TKR of 93.3% at 3 years. This is exactly in line with our model-based projection of freedom-from-TKR for the nonoperative group shown in Figure 3B of our article, suggesting our TKR event projection is not in disagreement with the Lim et al study data.
Furthermore, we welcome the opportunity to provide further comment on the Krych et al3 (2017) data, as Dr Filbay’s comments suggest a misinterpretation of these data. In that study, 27% of patients developed 2 grades or more radiographic OA change. Progression of at least 1 or more K-L grade occurred in 79% of patients. This study showed 87% of patients met the failure criteria (defined as progression to a total knee arthroplasty [TKA] or a severely abnormal International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] score), including 16 arthroplasties and 29 severely abnormal IKDC scores.3 In addition, all 7 of the patients who did not meet failure criteria rated their knee as abnormal and had radiographic progression of arthritis. While higher baseline K-L grade (2 or more compared to \2) was the only factor associated with an increased rate of arthroplasty, females
had worse subjective knee outcome score by IKDC compared with males. Body mass index (BMI) was not found to be a factor, but the average patient was obese with a mean BMI of 33.4 (reflective of a North American cohort). Lastly, while subjective outcomes may lag radiographic changes, Krych et al2 also demonstrated progression of medial compartment chondral thinning within 1 year after patients
being diagnosed with a medial meniscus root tear.
When interpreting data from the Lim et al and Neogi et al studies, several limitations should be considered. Lim et al4 had only 30 patients compared with Krych et al3 with 52. Furthermore, their study had a shorter follow-up period of 36 months compared with Krych et al3 with a 62-month average follow-up. Importantly, Krych et al3 reported a 31% progression to TKA at an average of 30 months, but many of these occurred after 36 months. Neogi et al5 also had a limited number of patients and a shorter follow-up. In addition, this study excluded patients with varus malalignment, which is a known factor for worse outcomes and, therefore, may not be representative
of a typical meniscal root tear population.
We thank Dr Filbay again for her interest in our study, bringing to our attention these 2 studies and the importance that systematic reviews have on our practice.4,5 However, as we have outlined, our study conclusion that meniscus repair should be adopted as the preferred initial intervention for medial meniscus root tears to prevent knee OA does not change.
Scott C. Faucett, MD, MS
Washington, DC, USA
Benjamin P. Geisler, MD
Menlo Park, California, USA
Jorge Chahla, MD, PhD
Santa Monica, California, USA
Aaron J. Krych, MD
Rochester, Minnesota, USA
Robert F. LaPrade, MD, PhD
Vail, Colorado, USA
Jan B. Pietzsch, PhD
Menlo Park, California, USA
REFERENCES
1. Faucett SC, Geisler BP, Chahla J, et al. Meniscus root repair vs meniscectomy
or nonoperative management to prevent knee osteoarthritis
after medial meniscus root tears: clinical and economic effectiveness
[published online March 1, 2018]. Am J Sports Med. doi:10.1177/
0363546518755754.
2. Krych AJ, Johnson NR, Mohan R, et al. Arthritis progression on serial
MRIs following diagnosis of medial meniscal posterior horn root tear
[published online September 26, 2017]. J Knee Surg. doi:10.1055/s0037-1607038.
3. Krych AJ, Reardon PJ, Johnson NR, et al. Non-operative management
of medial meniscus posterior horn root tears is associated with worsening
arthritis and poor clinical outcome at 5-year follow-up. Knee
Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(2):383-389.
4. Lim HC, Bae JH, Wang JH, Seok CW, Kim MK. Non-operative treatment
of degenerative posterior root tear of the medial meniscus.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(4):535-539.
5. Neogi DS, Kumar A, Rijal L, Yadav CS, Jaiman A, Nag HL. Role of nonoperative
treatment in managing degenerative tears of the medial
meniscus posterior root. J Orthop Traumatol. 2013;14(3):193-199.