Cut and No Cure: When Doing Nothing Beats Going Under the Knife

Cut and No Cure:
When Doing Nothing Beats Going Under the Knife

Sixty million Americans live with chronic pain in the knee. Most are over fifty, and most blame it on aging — worn cartilage, or tears in the meniscus, the rubbery cushion inside your knee joint. For decades, orthopedic surgeons have responded with a quick fix: a minimally invasive procedure to trim away the damaged tissue, costing about $10,000 per surgery and billions per year. It became one of the most commonly performed orthopedic surgeries in the world. But here's the unacknowledged truth: nobody had rigorously proven it actually worked.

About a decade ago, a group of researchers decided to test that assumption using a blinded surgery study. They enrolled 146 patients, all with confirmed meniscal tears. Half received real surgery. The other half received something called sham surgery — they went to the operating room, were put under anesthesia, received a real incision, real antiseptic stains on their skin, and real stitches. But nothing inside the knee was repaired. Neither the patients nor the researchers tracking their outcomes knew who had gotten which procedure. At the end of the trial, patients could not identify which treatment they received. The blinding worked.

This double blind trial is the gold standard of medical research — and the results were startling. Patients who had the real surgery did no better than those who had the fake one. Pain levels, knee function, and disability scores were essentially the same in both groups. Worse, there was a signal that surgery might actually be speeding up joint deterioration.

Orthopedic surgeons weren't pleased. They argued the study was too short — real benefits, they said, would take years to show up.

So the researchers waited. Ten years later, they tracked down 91 percent of the original participants — a remarkable achievement — and brought them back. The follow-up study they just published was sobering. Arthritis had progressed in 81 percent of the surgery group, compared to 70 percent in the sham group. Eight patients who'd had real surgery eventually needed a full knee replacement. In the sham group, only three did.

After ten years, the surgery still showed no benefit — and the suggestion of harm had only grown stronger.

This is rigorous science, addressing a problem that affects tens of millions of people, with the kind of long-term follow-up that is genuinely rare. The evidence is about as clean as medical research gets.

So why is the surgery still being done? That's the harder question — and the more important one. As long as surgeons can convince themselves the surgery works, and insurance companies are willing to pay for it, the surgery continues.

In medicine, it is far easier to adopt a new procedure than to abandon an old one. Especially when that procedure generates substantial income, and when generations of surgeons have been trained to believe in it.

Changing what doctors do requires more than publishing a study. It requires institutions, insurers, and professional societies to act on the evidence — and to put patients ahead of habit.

That gap, between what the science says and what happens in the exam room, may be the most chronic condition of all.

— Dr. Michael Wilkes with a Second Opinion

Download the KCRW App