Abstract
Introduction
Post-meniscectomy syndrome is broadly characterised by intractable pain following the partial or total removal of a meniscus. There is a large treatment gap between the first knee pain after meniscectomy and the eligibility for a TKA. Hence, there is a strong unmet need for a solution that will relieve this post-meniscectomy pain. Goal of this first-in-man study was to evaluate the safety and performance of an anatomically shaped artificial medial meniscus prosthesis and the accompanying surgical technique.
Methods
A first-in-man, prospective, multi-centre, single arm clinical investigation was intended to be performed on 18 post-medial meniscectomy syndrome patients with limited underlying cartilage damage (Kellgren Lawrence scale 0–3) in the medial compartment and having a normal lateral compartment. Eventually 5 patients received a polycarbonate urethane mediale meniscus prosthesis (Trammpolin® medial meniscus prosthesis; ATRO Medical B.V., the Netherlands) which was clicked onto two titanium screws fixated at the native horn attachments on the tibia. PROMs were collected at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months following the intervention including X-rays at 6, 12 and 24 Months. MRI scans were repeated after 12 and 24 months.
Results
The surgical technique to select the appropriately sized implant and correct positioning of the fixation screws and meniscus prosthesis onto the tibia was demonstrated feasible and reproducible. The surgeries showed that in particular the positioning of the posterior screw is crucial for correct positioning of the prosthesis. Inclusion stopped after 5 patients, who reached the 6 months evaluation. The PROMs did not improve in the first 6 months after surgery. All patients reported knee joint stiffness and slight effusion in their knee at 6 months follow-up. In case of symptomatic patients an evaluation of the device position and integrity was performed by MRI. In three patients the implants were removed because of implant failure and in one patient the implant was removed because of persistent pain and extension deficit. At present one patient has the implant still in situ. The explantations of the implants demonstrated no articular cartilage damage and the fixation screws were securely anchored.
Discussion
This is the first clinical study with an artificial meniscus-like prosthesis. Except one, all implants were removed due to implant breakage or discomfort of the patient. Analysis of the torn implants showed fatigue failure resulting from the lack of loadsharing between implant and cartilage: the implant was too stiff and carried all the load in the medial compartment of the knee. Furthermore, the fixation with screws seemed too rigid which restricted the motion of the posterior horn. Based on previous in vitro and animal experiments, we expected more creep of the material and more motion on the screw fixation.
Conclusion
This first-in-man clinical study demonstrates that the investigated device design is not safe and did not perform as expected. Therefore, modification of the meniscus prosthesis design and fixation technique is required to allow for more motion of the meniscus prosthesis during knee joint movement.
