Log in

Follow-up of collagen meniscus implants by MRI

Follow-up con RM di impianto di menisco collagenico (CMI)

  • Musculoskeletal Radiology Radiologia Muscoloscheletrica
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the follow-up of patients treated with collagen meniscus implant (CMI) and to identify MRI patterns suitable for defining its evolution.

Materials and methods

Between March 2001 and June 2003, CMI was performed on 40 patients (27 men and 13 women, age 23–58 years, median 41 years) affected by irreparable medial meniscal lesions. All patients underwent MRI follow-up at 6 months and 1 year and 16 patients 2 years after the operation; 12 patients underwent second-look arthroscopy with implant biopsy. All MRI examinations were performed with a 1.5-T unit using GE T2*, spin-echo (SE) T1, and FatSat fast spin-echo (FSE) DP and T2-weighted sequences, with different orientations. At 24 months, MR arthrography was also performed. Implant evolution was assessed on the basis of MRI direct and indirect criteria. Direct criteria were morphology and signal intensity of the collagen meniscus/residual meniscus complex. Based on these characteristics, three pattern were identified and classified from 1 to 3, where a higher score corresponded to characteristics approaching those of the normal meniscus. Indirect criteria were chondral surface and subchondral bone marrow oedema at implant site and associated synovial pathology.

Results

MRI follow-up at 6 months showed CMI shape and size to be normal (type 3) in 35/40 patients and type 2 in 5/40 patients. CMI signal intensity was type 1 in 32/40 patients and type 2 in 8/40. An interface between prosthetic and native meniscus was identified in 27/40 patients. Chondral lesions were present in 3/40 cases and subchondral bone marrow oedema in 8/40 cases. Reactive synovial effusion was seen in 2/40 patients. MRI follow-up at 12 months showed CMI shape and size to be normal (type 3) in 33/40 patients and type 2 in 7/40. Signal intensity was type 1 in 14/40 patients and type 2 in 26/40 patients. The interface was seen in 19/40 patients. The associated chondral lesions were unchanged, whereas subchondral bone marrow oedema was present in 3/40 patients. No synovial reaction was detected. At 24 months, CMI size was type 3 in 9/16 patients, type 2 in 6/16, and type 1 in one patient in whom the implant could not be identified, as it had been totally resorbed. CMI signal intensity was type 2 in 11/15 and type 3 in 4/16. The interface was identified in seven patients. MR arthrography depicted two additional chondral lesions and enabled correct grading of all lesions. Subchondral bone marrow oedema was present in two patients only.

Conclusions

MRI enables morphological and structural changes of CMI to be monitored over time. Follow-up can be extended beyond 2 years, until the CMI has stabilised and subchondral bone marrow oedema has completely resolved. In the single case with a poor CMI outcome, no related direct or indirect signs were identified.

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Scopo del nostro lavoro è valutare l’utilità della RM nel follow-up di pazienti sottoposti ad impianto di menisco collagenico bovino (CMI) e individuare patterns RM idonei a definirne l’evoluzione.

Materiali e metodi

Quaranta pazienti, 27 maschi e 13 femmine (di età compresa tra 23 e 58 anni, età mediana: 41 anni), sottoposti a impianto di menisco protesico mediale per via artroscopica, hanno eseguito follow-up con RM a 6 mesi e a 1 anno e solo 16 pazienti a 2 anni dall’intervento; in 12 casi è stato eseguito second look artroscopico con prelievo bioptico dell’impianto. Le indagini RM sono state eseguite con tomografo da 1,5 T, il protocollo di studio prevedeva sequenze Ge T2*, SE T1 e FSE FATSAT DP/T2 variamente orientate in tutti i controlli, a 24 mesi si eseguiva anche esame artro-RM. Per la valutazione dell’evoluzione dell’impianto all’indagine RM sono stati considerati criteri diretti: le dimensioni e l’intensità di segnale del complesso menisco collagenico-menisco residuo (in base a queste caratteristiche abbiamo individuato tre tipi di patterns che abbiamo classificato da 1 a 3, con valore tanto più alto quanto più queste si avvicinano alle caratteristiche del menisco normale) e criteri indiretti: superfici condrali e spongiosa ossea sottocondrale in sede di impianto e patologia sinoviale associata.

Risultati

Nel controllo RM a 6 mesi in 35/40 pazienti le dimensioni del CMI erano di tipo 3, in 5/40 di tipo 2. L’intensità di segnale del CMI era di tipo 1 in 32/40 pazienti, di tipo 2 in 8/40. L’interfaccia menisco protesico-menisco nativo era identificabile in 27/40 pazienti. In 3/40 casi è stata evidenziata patologia condrale e in 8/40 casi sofferenza dell’osso subcondrale. In 2/40 pazienti vi era versamento reattivo sinoviale. Nel controllo a 12 mesi la morfologia e le dimensioni dell’impianto erano normali (tipo 3) in 33/40 pazienti, mentre erano di tipo 2 in 7/40. L’intensità di segnale del complesso era di tipo 1 in 14/40 pazienti, di tipo 2 in 26/40 pazienti. L’interfaccia era presente 19/40 pazienti. Le lesioni condrali associate mantenevano aspetto invariato, mentre la sofferenza della spongiosa ossea subcondrale era presente solo in 3/40 pazienti. Non vi era alcuna reazione sinoviale. Nel controllo a 24 mesi in 9/16 pazienti le dimensioni del CMI erano di tipo 3, in 6/16 di tipo 2; in 1 pazienti l’impianto non risultava identificabile, totalmente riassorbito (tipo 1). In 11/15 pazienti l’intensità di segnale del CMI era di tipo 2, mentre in 4/15 era sovrapponibile al menisco normale, di tipo 3. In 7 pazienti l’interfaccia risultava riconoscibile. Con artro-RM è stato possibile rilevare 2 nuovi casi di patologia condrale e definire il corretto grading di tutte le lesioni; solo in 2 pazienti vi era sofferenza della spongiosa ossea subcondrale.

Conclusioni

La RM consente di monitorare nel tempo le variazioni morfologiche e strutturali del CMI, riteniamo che il follow-up possa essere prolungato altre i 2 anni, fino alla “stabilizzazione” del CMI e alla completa risoluzione delle aree di edema della spongiosa ossea subcondrale. Nell’unico caso di evoluzione sfavorevole del CMI non si sono individuati segni diretti o indiretti correlabili.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References/Bibliografia

  1. Krause WR, Pope MH, Johnson RJ et al (1976) Mechanical changes in the knee after meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58:599–604

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Erbagci H, Gumusburun E, Bayram M et al (2004) The normal menisci: in vivo MRI measurements. Surg Radiol Anat 26:28–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ronga M, Bulgheroni P, Manelli A et al (2003) Short-term evaluation of collagen meniscus implants by MRI and morphological analysis. J Orthopaed Traumatol 4:5–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fairbank TJ (1948) Knee joint changes after meniscetomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 30:664–670

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson RJ, Kettelkamp DB, Clark W et al (1974) Factors effecting late results after meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56:719–729

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. RodKey WG, Stone KR, Steadman JR (1992) Prosthetic meniscal replacement. In: Finerman GAM, Noyes FR (eds) Biology and biomechanics of traumatized synovial joint: the knee as a model. Am Academy of Orthop Surg, Rosemont, pp 221–231

  7. RodKey WG, Stone KR, Steadman JR (1993) Replacement of the irreparably injured meniscus. Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review 1:168–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Steadman JR, RodKey WG, Li S-T (2000) The collagen meniscus implant: development and clinical trials of a device to treat meniscus injuries of the knee. Sport Orthop Traumatol 16:173–177

    Google Scholar 

  9. RodKey WG, Steadman JR, Li S-T (1999) Collagen scaffolds: a new method to preserve and restore the severely injured meniscus. Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review 7:63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. RodKey WG, Steadman JR, Li S-T (1999) A clinical study of collagen meniscus implants to restore the injured meniscus. Clin Orthop Rel Res 367:S281–S292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stone KR, RodKey WG, Webber RJ et al (1992) Meniscal regeneration with copolymeric collagen scaffolds: in vitro and in vivo studies evaluated clinically, histologically, and biochemically. Am J Sports Med 20:104–111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stone KR, RodKey WG, Webber RJ et al (1990) Future directions: collagen-based prostheses for meniscal regeneration. Clin Orthop 252:129–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stone KR, Steadman JR, RodKey WG et al (1997) Regeneration of meniscal cartilage with use of a collagen scaffold: analysis of preliminary data. J Bone Joint Surg 79-A:1770–1777

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ruwe Pa, Wright J, Lawr Randall R et al (1992) Can MR imaging effectively replace diagnostic arthroscopy. Radiology 183:335–339

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jee WH, McCauley TR, Kim JM et al (2003) Meniscal tears configuartions: categorization with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:93–97

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. White LM, Schweitzer ME, Weishaupt D et al (2002) Diagnosis of recurrent meniscal tears: prospective evaluation of conventional MR imaging, indirect MR arthrography, and direct MR arthrography. Radiology 222:421–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson MA (2002) MR imaging of the meniscus. Radiol Clin N Am 40:1081–1094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Helms CA (2002) The meniscus: recent advances in MR imaging of the knee. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1115–1122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Genovese E, Callegari L, Magenta Biasina A et al (2003) MR arthrography: a proposal for solution optimization with lidocaine. An in vitro experience. Radiol Med 106:489–496

    Google Scholar 

  20. Li S-T, Yuen D, Li PC et al (1994) Collagen as a biomaterial: an application in knee meniscal fibrocartilage regeneration. Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 331:25–32

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stone KR, Steadman JR, Li S-T et al (1996) Collagen meniscus implants in humans. Arthroscopy 12:383

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sciulli RL, Boutin RD, Brown RR et al (1999) Evaluation of the postoperative meniscus of the knee: a study comparing conventional arthrography, conventional MR imaging, MR arthrography with iodinated contrast material, and MR arthrography with gadolinium-based contrast material. Skeletal Radiol 28:508–514

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Recht MP, Kramer J (2002) MR imaging of the postoperative knee: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 22:765–774

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Applegate GR, Flannigan BD, Tolin BS et al (1993) MR diagnosis of recurrent tears in the knee: value of intraarticular contrast material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 161:821–825

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hantes ME, Zachos VC, Zibis AH et al (2004) Evaluation of meniscal repair with serial magnetic resonance imaging: acomparative study between conventional MRI and indirect MR arthrography. Eur J Radiol 50:231–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Magee T, Shapiro M, Rodriguez J et al (2003) MR arthrography of postoperative knee: for which patients is it useful? Radiology 229:159–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Steadman JR, Rodkey WG (2005) Tissue-engineered collagen meniscus implants: 5-to 6-year feasibility study results. Arthroscopy 21:515–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Genovese.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Genovese, E., Angeretti, M.G., Ronga, M. et al. Follow-up of collagen meniscus implants by MRI. Radiol med 112, 1036–1048 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-007-0204-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-007-0204-y

Key words

Parole chiave

Navigation