Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Background: Meniscal scaffold implantation has been introduced as a treatment for meniscal injuries, but there is still no clear consensus on its clinical impact, including its chondroprotective effect. This review aimed to assess the chondroprotective effects, clinical outcomes, and survivorship of meniscal scaffold implantation compared to meniscectomy, as well as among different types of scaffolds. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, encompassing articles published until June 1, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative studies published in English that reported results using collagen meniscal implant (CMI) and polyurethane meniscal scaffold for meniscal tear were included. Results: A total of 421 studies were initially identified across databases, and a systematic review was conducted on 8 studies involving 596 patients. Among the 5 studies that addressed the chondroprotective effect, none found that meniscal scaffolds had a higher chondroprotective effect compared to meniscectomy. In studies comparing CMI and meniscectomy, the Lysholm score results showed a mean difference (MD) range between –5.90 and –4.40. In the case of visual analog scale score, the MD ranged from –1.0 to 1.0. In studies comparing polyurethane meniscal scaffolds and CMI, the Tegner score results showed an MD range of –2.0 to 0.4. Conclusions There was no superiority in chondroprotective effects for both CMI and polyurethane meniscal scaffolds compared to meniscectomy. Although meniscal scaffolds may provide improvements in clinical outcomes, no clinically relevant differences were observed in comparison to meniscectomy. There are no discernible differences between the 2 types of scaffolds.

Lateral spinal artery (LSA) aneurysms are extremely rare lesions that can rupture and cause subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) even though the spinal arteries communicate directly with the subarachnoid space. To date, six cases of LSA aneurysms have been reported in the literature. Herein, three such cases are reported. All patients presented to the emergency department with headaches. The patients in the first two cases were confirmed to have SAH and LSA aneurysms on a brain computed tomography (CT) angiography performed at the hospital. Two patients had prior instances of cerebral infarction and coronary disease, respectively, and were undergoing antiplatelet therapy. The antiplatelet medication was stopped for 2 weeks and 1 week, respectively, while conservative care was provided. Subsequently, a suboccipital craniectomy was performed, followed by aneurysm clipping. Following the surgery, both patients were discharged without any significant neurological deficits. Regarding the third patient, no aneurysm was found on brain CT angiography, and cerebral angiography was performed during the patient’s hospital stay. She was hospitalized, where she received medication and conservative care, and was discharged with an improvement in bleeding without neurological symptoms. Subsequently, a LSA aneurysm was identified on a brain CT angiography performed at an outpatient clinic; however, the patient was transferred because she wanted to be treated at another hospital. LSA aneurysms are difficult to visualize using CT angiography; therefore, careful angiographic studies are required. Surgical clipping is the treatment of choice if the aneurysm is inaccessible by the endovascular treatment.