Current practice of biologic augmentation techniques to enhance the healing of meniscal repairs: A collaborative survey within the Meniscus International Network (MenIN) Study Group

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate practices and preferences among expert sports knee surgeons regarding biologic augmentation techniques in meniscal repair.

Methods: A 12-question multiple-choice survey was distributed to the Meniscus International Network (MenIN) Study Group. It covered biologic augmentation techniques for various meniscal tear types, both in isolation and with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Eight options were assessed: no augmentation, trephination, rasping, marrow venting, fibrin clot, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and meniscal wrapping. Surgeons could select multiple techniques per scenario.

Results: Forty-two surgeons participated: 42% from Europe, 18% from North America, 10% from Latin America, 21% from Asia and 9% from Africa/Oceania. For isolated meniscal tears (excluding meniscal root tears), 90% of surgeons used at least one biologic augmentation technique. For meniscal tears associated with ACLR, 66% of surgeons used at least one biologic augmentation technique. The most utilized techniques were rasping (19%-69%), trephination (7%-43%), and marrow venting (0%-74%). PRP (2%-19%), BMAC (0%-14%) and meniscal wrapping (0%-10%) were least used. Biologic augmentation was most frequent for isolated radial (93%), isolated bucket-handle (86%), isolated vertical (86%) and isolated horizontal tears (98% for younger patients, 86% for degenerative tears). ACLR-associated repairs had lower augmentation rates, and meniscal root tears showed the highest percentage of non-augmented repairs. Over 50% of surgeons use a single augmentation technique, while 20% use two techniques depending on tear type. Overall, 33.3% (n = 14) of surgeons reported utilizing PRP and/or BMAC for meniscal repair augmentation, with the highest use observed in South America (12%) based on geographic usage.

Conclusions: This survey provides insights into current meniscal repair practices among expert orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons. The findings reveal variability in approaches based on tear patterns and associated procedures, with a general preference for simpler mechanical augmentation techniques over more advanced biologics. For isolated meniscal tears (excluding meniscal root tears), 90% of surgeons in this cohort report using one or more biological augmentation techniques.

Level of evidence: Level V expert opinion.

Keywords: Meniscus International Network (MenIN) Study Sroup; biologic augmentation; meniscus; repair.