Meniscal repair using an all-inside, rapidly absorbing, tensionable device

All-Inside and Inside-Out Repair Techniques for Bucket-Handle Meniscus Tears Both Result in Improved Patient Outcomes and a Broad Range of Failure Rates: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To compare patient-reported outcomes, failure rates, risk factors for failure, and complications in patients with bucket-handle meniscus tears (BHMTs) undergoing repair with inside-out (IO) versus all-inside (AI) techniques.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from database inception to August 2023 according to the 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria consisted of Level I to IV clinical studies published in the past 10 years with greater than 2 years of follow-up that evaluated patient-reported outcome scores and/or the incidence of failure after IO or AI repairs for BHMTs. Clinical studies not reporting outcomes or failure rates, older studies using outdated implants, animal studies, reviews, letters to the editor, case reports, cadaveric studies, and articles not written in the English language or with English-language translation were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Outcomes were reported as ranges and qualitatively compared.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies published from 2013 to 2023, consisting of 1,062 patients with BHMTs, were identified. Thirteen studies (14 cohorts, 649 patients) reported on AI repair (mean age range, 23.7-32 years) and 7 studies (7 cohorts, 413 patients) reported on IO repair (mean age range, 16.7-34.6 years). Both groups had improved postoperative Lysholm and Tegner scores. Decreased range of motion was the most commonly reported complication in the AI group (range, 2.6%-4%), whereas adhesions for arthrofibrosis were the most commonly reported complication in the IO group (n = 12; range, 6%-7.9%). The overall reported failure rate ranged from 6.9% to 20.5% within the AI group and from 0% to 20% within the IO group.

CONCLUSIONS

AI and IO repair techniques for BHMTs both result in improved Lysholm and Tegner scores. However, broad ranges of failure are reported in the literature, with overall failure rates ranging from 6.9% to 20.5% after AI repair and from 0% to 20% after IO repair. Younger age and isolated medial BHMT repair are the most frequently reported risk factors for the AI technique, whereas postoperative stiffness is the most frequently reported complication after both repair techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

Absorbable implants in sport medicine and arthroscopic surgery: A narrative review of recent development

Over the past two decades, advances in arthroscopic and minimally invasive surgical techniques have led to significant growth in sports medicine surgery. Implants such as suture anchors, interference screws, and endo-buttons are commonly used in these procedures. However, traditional implants made of metal or inert materials are not absorbable, leading to complications that affect treatment outcomes. To address this issue, absorbable materials with excellent mechanical properties, good biocompatibility, and controlled degradation rates have been developed and applied in clinical practice. These materials include absorbable polymers, absorbable bioceramics, and absorbable metals. In this paper, we will provide a comprehensive summary of these absorbable materials from the perspective of clinicians, and discuss their clinical applications and related research in sport medicine.

What Is the Failure Rate After Arthroscopic Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Meniscal repair has become the treatment of choice for meniscal tears, especially in the subset of bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs). However, a comprehensive estimate of the corresponding failure rate is not available, thus maintaining doubts about the healing potential of these tears. Furthermore, a wide range of factors to predict high failure rates have been reported but with conflicting evidence.

PURPOSE

To determine the failure rate after arthroscopic repair of BHMTs as reported in the literature, compare this with the failure rate of simple meniscal tears extracted from the same studies, and analyze the influence of factors previously reported to be predictive of meniscal repair failure.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers using principal bibliographic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). After a stepwise exclusion process, 38 articles met the inclusion criteria. Failure rate data were analyzed with a random-effects proportional meta-analysis (weighted for individual study size), and forest plots were constructed to determine any statistically significant differences between BHMTs versus simple tears (longitudinal, radial, or horizontal), medial versus lateral BHMTs, isolated procedures versus repairs with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and tears in red-red versus red-white zones. Moreover, a meta-regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of patient age and sex, suture technique (in-out or all-inside), time from injury to surgery, mean number of stitches, and length of follow-up on failure rates.

RESULTS

The pooled failure rate was 14.8% (95% CI, 11.3%-18.3%; I² = 77.2%). A total of 17 studies provided failure rates of both BHMT repairs (46/311 repairs) and simple tear repairs (54/546 repairs), demonstrating a significantly higher failure rate for BHMT repairs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.05-2.15; I² = 0%; P = .03). Medial BHMT repairs (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.25-3.01; I² = 0%; P = .003) and isolated repairs (RR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.15-2.72; I² = 0%; P = .009) had statistically higher risk of failure, but no statistically significant difference was found between tears in red-red versus red-white zones. Among the other factors evaluated with meta-regression, only the mean number of stitches showed a statistically significant effect on failure rates.

CONCLUSION

Based on the currently available literature, this systematic review provides a reasonably comprehensive analysis of failure rate after arthroscopic BHMT repair; failure is estimated to occur in 14.8% of cases. Medial tears and isolated repairs were the 2 major predictors of failure.

All-Inside Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears: Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on technique of choice for repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs).

PURPOSE

To determine factors that affect patient outcomes and failure rates in patients undergoing all-inside repairs of BHMTs.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review of 3 databases using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. All English-language literature from 1993 to 2019 describing clinical outcomes for patients undergoing all-inside BHMT repair with ≥12-month follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Patient characteristics (patient sex, age), intraoperative factors (laterality, concomitant procedures, surgical technique, implants utilized), and postoperative outcomes (failure rates) were analyzed. Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (1 level 1, 4 level 3, 10 level 4) with 763 total patients (64% male; average age, 26.4 years [range, 9-58 years]; average follow-up, 39.8 months [range, 12-120 months]) including 396 all-inside BHMT repairs were included. Six devices were used for repair including the Meniscal Repair System, FasT-Fix, Meniscus Arrow, Biofix Arrow, RapidLoc device, and PDS II suture, with failure rates of 13.5%, 22.4%, 27.1%, 42.9%, 45.2%, and 0%, respectively. The overall repair failure rate was 29.3% at an average of 13.0 months (range, 5.0-32.4 months), but 19.0% for devices still in use. The RapidLoc and Biofix Arrow had higher failure rates than other devices (P = .0003). Women (31%) were less likely to experience a failure than were men (69%) (P = .03). Longer follow-up duration resulted in higher failure rates (>30 months, 34.4%; <30 months, 23.4%; P = .016). In 4 studies reporting on both all-inside and inside-out repairs, no significant differences in failure rates were observed. No significant differences in failure rates were found between medial and lateral repairs nor repair with and without concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (P > .05 for all). The overall average MCMS was 54.4 ± 12.

CONCLUSION

The overall failure rate after all-inside repair of BHMTs is 29.3% at an average of 13.0 months, with no difference in failure rates between medial and lateral meniscal repairs. The variables shown to negatively affect the failure rates were the RapidLoc and Biofix Arrow, male sex, and longer follow-up duration.

Subjective Knee Function and Risk of Failure Are Equivalent for Men and Women at 5 Years After Meniscus Repair

PURPOSE

To determine whether subjective knee function or risk of repair failure differ between men and women at mean 5 years following meniscal repair with or without concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

A total of 235 patients (97 women, 138 men; mean age, 29.1 years; standard deviation, 11.3) were assessed for meniscus repair failure and postoperative knee function at mean 5.8 years follow-up. Knee symptoms were assessed with International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective (IKDC-S) scores. Postoperative activity scores were assessed with Marx activity score. Independent effects of patient age and activity level on meniscus failure risk and patient-reported outcomes were determined by multivariate analysis with adjustment for age, body mass index, anterior cruciate ligament status, tear pattern, and number of implants used at the time of surgery.

RESULTS

Failures occurred in 18.9% of men and 21.0% of women with no difference in mean time to failure (P = .75) or risk of failure for men vs women (P = .57) in the univariate analysis. Male sex was not an independent risk factor for failure after adjustment for patient age, body mass index, concomitant anterior cruciate ligament status, tear pattern, or number of implants used (P = .16). Marx activity scores at follow-up were higher among men in multivariate analysis (P = .009). Men and women had similar IKDC-S scores at follow-up in the unadjusted (P = .25) and multivariate analyses (P = .21).

CONCLUSIONS

Following meniscus repair, both sexes report similar subjective knee function, though men have higher self-reported activity scores. Meniscus repair failure risk does not differ between men or women at mid-term follow up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective case-control study.

Management of traumatic meniscus tears: the 2019 ESSKA meniscus consensus

PURPOSE

The importance of meniscus integrity in the prevention of early osteoarthritis is well known, and preservation is accepted as the primary goal. The purpose of the ESSKA (European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy) European consensus on traumatic meniscus tears was to provide recommendations for the treatment of meniscus tears based on both scientific evidence and the clinical experience of knee experts.

METHODS

Three groups of surgeons and scientists elaborated and ratified the so-called formal consensus process to define the recommendations for the management of traumatic meniscus tears. A traumatic meniscus tear was defined as a tear with an acute onset of symptoms caused by a sufficient trauma. The expert groups included a steering group of eight European surgeons and scientists, a rating group of another nineteen European surgeons, and a peer review group. The steering group prepared twenty-seven question and answer sets based on the scientific literature. The quality of the answers received grades of A (a high level of scientific support), B (scientific presumption), C (a low level of scientific support) or D (expert opinion). These question and answer sets were then submitted to and evaluated by the rating group. All answers were scored from 1 (= totally inappropriate) to 9 (= totally appropriate) points. Thereafter, the comments of the members of the rating group were incorporated by the steering group and the consensus was submitted to the rating group a second time. Once a general consensus was reached between the steering and rating groups, the finalized question and answer sets were submitted for final review by the peer review group composed of representatives of the ESSKA-affiliated national societies. Eighteen representatives replied.

RESULTS

The review of the literature revealed a rather low scientific quality of studies examining the treatment of traumatic meniscus tears. Of the 27 questions, only one question received a grade of A (a high level of scientific support), and another received a grade of B (scientific presumption). The remaining questions received grades of C and D. The mean rating of all questions by the rating group was 8.2 (95% confidence interval 8.1-8.4). A general agreement that MRI should be performed on a systematic basis was not achieved. However, MRI was recommended when arthroscopy would be considered to identify concomitant pathologies. In this case, the indication for MRI should be determined by a musculoskeletal specialist. Based on our data, stable left in situ lateral meniscus tears appear to show a better prognosis than medial tears. When repair is required, surgery should be performed as early as possible. Evidence that biological enhancement such as needling or the application of platelet-rich plasma would improve healing was not identified. Preservation of the meniscus should be considered as the first line of treatment because of an inferior clinical and radiological long-term outcome after partial meniscectomy compared to meniscus repair.

DISCUSSION

The consensus was generated to present the best possible recommendations for the treatment of traumatic meniscus tears and provides some groundwork for a clinical decision-making process regarding the treatment of meniscus tears. Preservation of the meniscus should be the first line of treatment when possible, because the clinical and radiological long-term outcomes are worse after partial meniscectomy than after meniscus preservation. The consensus clearly states that numerous meniscus tears that were considered irreparable should be repaired, e.g., older tears, tears in obese patients, long tears, etc. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Factors Predicting Failure Rates and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair

PURPOSE

To identify factors that affect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and failure rates after arthroscopic meniscal repair.

METHODS

Embase, Embase Classic, and MEDLINE were searched on August 7, 2015, December 23, 2016, and March 11, 2018, for factors associated with PROMs and failure rates after arthroscopic meniscal repair. We excluded studies that (1) were non-English language, (2) did not use human patients, (3) were nonclinical, (4) did not analyze for factors that predicted PROMs or failure rates, and (5) were below Level IV evidence. Studies were graded into higher and lower quality using the Downs and Black scale.

RESULTS

A total of 34 articles met our criteria, and 32 were graded. We identified 16 articles as higher quality. Among higher-quality studies, factors that significantly predicted reduced failure rates were concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) (n = 6) and reduced tear complexity (n = 4). Factors that did not significantly impact failure rates were side of repair (n = 8), sex (n = 7), time from injury to surgery (n = 7), age (n = 7), rim width (n = 6), and tear length (n = 5). Factors predicting better PROMs were time from injury to surgery of less than 3 months (n = 1), Outerbridge scores below grade 3 or 4 (n = 2), and reduced varus alignment (n = 2). Factors that did not significantly impact PROMs were equipment used (n = 3) and concurrent ACLR (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors affecting failure rates and PROMs after arthroscopic meniscal repair were identified. However, more and higher-quality studies supported concurrent ACLR and less complex tears as predictors of lower failure rates. PROMs were negatively affected by a longer time from injury to surgery, higher Outerbridge scores, and greater varus alignment before surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.

Editorial Commentary: Stay Tuned: Broadening Our Scope of Knee Meniscus Radial Tear Repairs

Repair of knee meniscus radial tears can result in clinical success. More precise and well-defined indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes are needed.

Long-term outcome after all-inside meniscal repair using the RapidLoc system

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the outcome at a minimum of 7 years following meniscal repair using the RapidLoc (suture anchor) system. It was hypothesized that most patients would have an intact meniscus, as has been reported in several short- and medium-term studies.

METHODS

In the time period from 2002 to 2007, all patients with a vertical longitudinal tear of the meniscus that was judged to be repairable were treated with rasping of the tear area and nearby parameniscal synovium and fixation of the torn part with the use of RapidLoc implants. Using a surgeon-administered form, baseline information about the arthroscopic findings and procedures performed was recorded (at the time of surgery). A median 10-year (range 7-12 years) follow-up was conducted in 2014-2015, and surgical procedures to the knee following the (index) meniscal repair were registered. Treatment failure was defined as a new surgical procedure to the same meniscus.

RESULTS

At the time of follow-up, 39 out of 82 patients (48 %) had undergone further surgery to the repaired meniscus (failures). Nine of these occurred within the first 6 months after surgery, 21 within the first 12 months and 26 within the first 24 months. Thus, the failure rate was 11 % at 6 months, 23 % at 12 months and 28 % at 2 years. One-third (N = 13) of the failures occurred 2 years or later after the (index) meniscal repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term results of meniscal repair using the RapidLoc implants were found to be poor with a high failure rate. In a large proportion of the cases, re-rupture appeared several years after the index surgery, and a commonly used follow-up period of 2 years would therefore fail to detect them. In the day-by-day clinical work, of interest to orthopaedic surgeons is that meniscal repair using an all-inside technique similar to the one used by the authors may not solve the problem in the long run.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

MR-arthrography assessment after repair of chronic meniscal tears

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to assess the healing rate of repair of chronically torn meniscal tear with MR-arthrography and to evaluate the relationship between the clinical and the radiographic outcomes and the impact of the meniscal section on healing.

METHODS

MR-arthrography was performed at a median of 10.5 months (range 6-55) after surgery in 28 patients and healing assessed using Henning's criteria. All lesions were chronic (>3 months). Repairs were carried out at a median 14 months (range 6-80) from initial diagnosis. Eleven patients (39%) had ACL ligament reconstruction as well. All lesions were located in the red or red-white zone. Patients were followed for a median of 18.5 months (range 8-68). Functional outcomes were evaluated using Barrett's healing criteria, Lysholm and Tegner score pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Clinical healing of the lesion according to Barrett's criteria was achieved in 24 patients (85.7%). Both Lysholm and Tegner scores improved significantly after the surgery (p < 0.05). According to Henning's criteria, 15 of the menisci healed completely (53.5%), 10 partially (35.7%) and 3 failed (10.8%). There was no significant difference between the healing process in the posterior horn and the body of the meniscus (n.s.). No correlation was found between the healing results and the clinical scores. ACL reconstruction did not influence the healing process (n.s.). Patients waiting more than 1 year from lesion to surgery seem to have a higher rate of failure (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results found suggest good short-term clinical and anatomic outcomes post-repair of meniscal lesions, despite their chronic nature. Longer waiting times may have negative effects on the healing process. Partial healing occurred often, but the meniscus was painless and stable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Suture versus FasT-Fix all-inside meniscus repair at time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

To compare meniscal healing and functional outcomes after all-inside meniscal repair between sutures and meniscal fixation devices.

METHODS

Sixty patients with a tear within the red-red or red-white zones of the posterior horn of the medial or lateral meniscus in conjunction with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear were included in this study. Meniscal repairs were performed with sutures in 35 patients and the FasT-Fix device (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA) in 25 patients concomitantly with hamstring ACL reconstruction. Postoperative evaluations included Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) testing. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were obtained postoperatively for all patients to evaluate meniscal healing.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 47.2 months. In the suture group, 31 patients (86.1%) were asymptomatic and 4 (13.9%) were symptomatic. In the FasT-Fix group, 20 patients (80%) were asymptomatic and 5 (20%) were symptomatic. Postoperative functional evaluation and knee stability showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Follow-up MRI showed that 26 menisci (74.3%) were healed, 3 menisci (8.6%) were partially healed, and 6 menisci (17.1%) were not healed in the suture group. In the FasT-Fix group, 15 menisci (64%) were healed, 7 menisci (24%) were partially healed, and 3 menisci (12%) were not healed. Follow-up MRI showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. In the FasT-Fix group, follow-up MRI showed a newly developed cyst posterior to the medial meniscus in 2 patients. A new tear anterior to the previous tear was found in 1 patient. In the suture group, follow-up MRI showed no cysts or new tears.

CONCLUSIONS

All-inside meniscal repairs using either sutures or the FasT-Fix device showed satisfactory results in patients with concomitant hamstring ACL reconstruction. There was no statistically significant difference in meniscal healing evaluated by MRI and functional outcomes between the 2 techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Clinical healing rates of meniscus repairs of tears in the central-third (red-white) zone

PURPOSE

To determine the clinical healing rate of repairs of meniscus tears that extend into the central one-third region and the factors that affect the outcome.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed was conducted to determine the outcome of meniscus repairs in the red-white (R/W) zone. Inclusion criteria were as follows: English language, clinical trials published from 1996 to 2013, R/W tears analyzed separately from tears in other zones, arthroscopic suture-based repairs, and all evidence levels.

RESULTS

Of 344 articles identified, 23 met the inclusion criteria. There were 1,232 patients who had 1,326 meniscus repairs, of which 767 were in the R/W zone. Concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed in 955 patients (78%). The mean age was 25 years, and the mean follow-up was 4 years. Evaluation criteria included clinical examination in 22 studies, follow-up arthroscopy in 15, magnetic resonance imaging in 6, weight-bearing radiographs in 3, and the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score in 1. Overall, 637 (83%) of the repairs were considered clinically healed because no additional surgery was required and no obvious clinical meniscus symptoms were detected. This included 382 of 470 inside-out suture repairs (81%) and 255 of 297 all-inside suture repairs (86%). Twenty-two factors were assessed in 13 studies to determine their influence on the outcome, with varying results. Authors generally found that patient age, chronicity of injury, involved tibiofemoral compartment, gender, and concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction did not adversely affect the results. Insufficient data existed to assess the healing rates according to the type of meniscus tear except for single longitudinal tears. Complications were reported in 3% of the patients in this review. Long-term assessment of a chondroprotective effect of the repairs was conducted in only 2 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

An acceptable midterm clinical healing rate was found for R/W meniscus repairs, supporting this procedure when appropriately indicated. Long-term studies assessing the chondroprotective effect in the involved tibiofemoral compartment using magnetic resonance imaging and radiographs are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Meniscus repair and transplantation: a comprehensive update

Preservation of meniscal tissue is paramount for long-term joint function, especially in younger patients who are athletically active. Many studies have reported encouraging results following repair of meniscus tears for both simple longitudinal tears located in the periphery and complex multiplanar tears that extend into the central third avascular region. This operation is usually indicated in active patients who have tibiofemoral joint line pain and are less than 50 years of age. However, not all meniscus tears are repairable, especially if considerable damage has occurred. In select patients, meniscus transplantation may restore partial load-bearing meniscus function, decrease symptoms, and provide chondroprotective effects. The initial postoperative goal after both meniscus repair and transplantation is to prevent excessive weight bearing, as high compressive and shear forces can disrupt healing meniscus repair sites and transplants. Immediate knee motion and muscle strengthening are initiated the day after surgery. Variations are built into the rehabilitation protocol according to the type, location, and size of the meniscus repair, if concomitant procedures are performed, and if articular cartilage damage is present. Meniscus repairs located in the periphery heal rapidly, whereas complex multiplanar repairs tend to heal more slowly and require greater caution. The authors have reported the efficacy of the rehabilitation programs and the results of meniscus repair and transplantation in many studies.

Quadriceps muscle activation and radiographic osteoarthritis following ACL revision

PURPOSE

Quadriceps strength and activation may play an important role in the recovery from ACL revision surgery. The purpose of this study was to describe quadriceps strength and central activation ratio (CAR) and correlate with radiographic findings in patients with ACL revision surgery.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients who were on average 47.5 ± 21.1 months [range: 14-85 months] post-revision ACL reconstruction. We performed knee joint physical examination and radiographic evaluation. Quadriceps strength testing consisted of maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) with the knee bent to 90-degrees bilaterally. We calculated quadriceps central activation ratio using the superimposed burst technique. Radiographs (bilateral standing antero-posterior in knee flexion and lateral in full extension) were evaluated by a fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeon using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grading system.

RESULTS

Mean CAR was 83.9 ± 12.0% on the reconstructed limb and 85.5 ± 9.5% on the contralateral limb. Average, normalized MVIC torque was 2.5 ± 1.0 Nm/kg on the reconstructed limb and 2.7 ± 1.0 N m/kg for the contralateral limb. Patient age at the time of follow-up evaluation was related to severity of knee joint degeneration, particularly the medial, anterior and patellofemoral compartments. Younger patients with lower CARs tended to have more severe degeneration in the patellofemoral joint. Older patients with lower normalized MVIC torque values tended to exhibit more severely graded degeneration in the patellofemoral joint.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral quadriceps central activation deficits and radiographic osteoarthritis are evident in patients with revision ACL reconstruction.

Articular contact pressures of meniscal repair techniques at various knee flexion angles

Articular cartilage injury can occur after meniscal repair with biodegradable implants. Previous contact pressure analyses of the knee have been based on the tibial side of the meniscus at limited knee flexion angles. We investigated articular contact pressures on the posterior femoral condyle with different knee flexion angles and surgical repair techniques. Medial meniscus tears were repaired in 30 fresh bovine knees. Knees were mounted on a 6-degrees-of-freedom jig and statically loaded to 200 N at 45 degrees, 70 degrees, 90 degrees, and 110 degrees of knee flexion under 3 conditions: intact meniscus, torn meniscus, and meniscus after repair. For each repair, 3 sutures or biodegradable implants were used. A pressure sensor was used to determine the contact area and peak pressure. Peak pressures over each implant position were measured. Peak pressure increased significantly as knee flexion increased in normal, injured, and repaired knees. The change in peak pressure in knees with implant repairs was significantly higher than suture repairs at all knee flexion angles. Articular contact pressure on the posterior femoral condyle increased with knee flexion. Avoidance of deep knee flexion angles postoperatively may limit increases in articular contact pressures and potential chondral injury.

Meniscal repair using the FasT-Fix device in patients with chronic meniscal lesions

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate meniscal suturing using the FasT-Fix device for chronic meniscal tears. This procedure was carried out on 25 patients between 2006 and 2007. Nineteen patients were male and the median age was 31 (14-47) years. The median waiting time to surgery was 27 (6-80) months and the median follow-up was 20 (14-29) months. Eleven patients (44%) required reconstruction of an associated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. 20 patients (80%) showed medial meniscus tears. All tears were located in the red zone or red-white zone. According to Barett's criteria, meniscal tear healing was achieved in 21 patients (84%). Lysholm and Tegner scale scores improved from 60 (47-77) preoperatively to 95 (58-100) postoperatively and from 3 (2-6) preoperatively to 6 (3-9) postoperatively, respectively. There were no neurovascular complications. Revision surgery was necessary in one patient, in whom a partial meniscectomy was performed. The results obtained suggest that chronic meniscal tears in the zones described can be healed.

Comparison of arthroscopic medial meniscal suture repair techniques: inside-out versus all-inside repair

BACKGROUND

There are no reports comparing meniscal healing between inside-out and all-inside repairs using sutures.

HYPOTHESIS

No difference in healing rate exists between meniscal repairs with inside-out and all-inside suture repair in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Forty-eight consecutive patients underwent meniscal repairs of longitudinal tears of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. All-inside repair was attempted when the tears were located in the red-red zone or the ramp area of the meniscus. If a tear that was in the ramp area or red-red zone extended to the midbody of the meniscus, or if there was a tear in red-white zone, the inside-out repair technique was used. Fourteen patients had all-inside meniscal repairs, and 34 patients had inside-out meniscal repairs with absorbable sutures. Identical postoperative rehabilitation protocols were used. Postoperative evaluations included Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity levels, Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and KT-1000 arthrometer. Assessment of meniscal status was performed using joint line tenderness, McMurray test, and range of motion. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans were obtained on all patients.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 35.7 months. No patient had joint line tenderness or reported pain or clicking on McMurray test. There was no significant difference in range of motion between groups. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans demonstrated that 10 (71.4%) menisci were healed and 4 (28.6%) partially healed in the all-inside group; 24 (70.6%) menisci were healed and 10 (29.4%) partially healed in the inside-out group. There was no significant difference in meniscal healing between groups. There were no differences in Lachman test, KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side differences measurements, Lysholm scores, and Tegner activity scales. There was a significant difference in pivot-shift test between groups (P = .023). There were 2 complications associated with surgery. In the inside-out group, 1 patient required manipulation, and 2 patients had limited motion at final follow-up. Two patients in the inside-out group experienced transient saphenous nerve injury.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in meniscal healing between inside-out and all-inside repair techniques in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.

Meniscal repair

The meniscus plays an important role in preventing osteoarthritis of the knee. Repair of a meniscal lesion should be strongly considered if the tear is peripheral and longitudinal, with concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and in younger patients. The probability of healing is decreased in complex or degenerative tears, central tears, and tears in unstable knees. Age or extension of the tear into the avascular area are not exclusion criteria. Numerous repair techniques are available, and suture repair seems to provide superior biomechanical stability. However, the clinical success rate does not correlate well with the mechanical strength of the repair technique. Biologic factors might be of greater importance to the success of meniscal repair than the surgical technique. Therefore, the decision on the most appropriate repair technique should not rely on biomechanical parameters alone. Contemporary all-inside repair systems have decreased the operating time and the level of surgical skill required. Despite the ease of use, there is a potential for complications because of the close proximity of vessels, nerves, and tendons, of which the surgeon should be aware. There is no clear consensus on postoperative rehabilitation. Weight bearing in extension would most likely not be crucial in typical longitudinal lesions. However, higher degrees of flexion, particularly with weight bearing, give rise to large excursions of the menisci and to shear motions, and should therefore be advised carefully. Long-term studies show a decline in success rates with time. Further studies are needed to clarify the factors relevant to the healing of the menisci. Tissue engineering techniques to enhance the healing in situ are promising but have not yet evolved to a practicable level.

All-inside meniscal repair

All-inside meniscal repair has gained widespread popularity over recent years. The devices and techniques have rapidly evolved, resulting in increased ease of use and reduced surgical times and risk to the neurovascular structures. Despite these advances, inside-out suture repairs remain the current gold standard, with proven long-term results. All-inside techniques must continue to be compared to inside-out meniscal repair.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative meniscus

Imaging of the postoperative meniscus is a challenge. Nevertheless, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the symptomatic knee after meniscal surgery is a valuable diagnostic study of both the menisci and the entire joint. At present, symptomatic patients who have had partial meniscectomy of less than 25% may be evaluated by MRI. For those with partial meniscectomy of greater than 25% or after meniscal repair, direct or indirect magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) should be considered. Currently, the decision of whether to perform direct (intra-articular) versus indirect (intravenous) MRA must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis considering both the patient's ability to tolerate intra-articular injection and whether a significant effusion already exists, which will imbue the tear with synovial fluid (making intra-articular injection of less importance). In such cases of significant effusion, indirect MRA would be preferred. If MRI or MRA is contraindicated, computed tomography arthrography seems a promising alternative. For a patient who has undergone meniscal allograft transplantation, MRI seems adequate for detecting meniscocapsular healing, allograft extrusion, and allograft tear. Future improvements in MRI sequencing may obviate the need for invasive modalities.

FasT-Fix meniscal repair: mid-term results

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical success of the FasT-Fix meniscal repair device (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA) associated with an accelerated rehabilitation program.

METHODS

A prospectively collected consecutive series of meniscal repairs performed with the FasT-Fix device was studied. The Lysholm, Tegner, Cincinnati, and International Knee Documentation Committee activity scores, along with the clinical examination findings and adverse events, were recorded for all patients. Associated procedures were recorded. An accelerated postoperative rehabilitation program was followed, independent of concurrent anterior cruciate ligament surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-one meniscal repairs were performed, with an average follow-up of 30.7 months (range, 12 to 58 months). Twenty-nine of 41 repairs were performed in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligment reconstruction. The other repairs were in stable knees. There were 26 medial and 15 lateral meniscus repairs. Both menisci were repaired in 5 knees. Repeat arthroscopies were performed for 12 repairs and 7 (17%) were found to have failed. The preoperative and postoperative Lysholm, Tegner, Cincinnati, and International Knee Documentation Committee activity scores were 47.3 and 87.4, 3.4 and 7.2, 38.7 and 82.8, and 2.3 and 3.4, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The FasT-Fix meniscal repair associated with an accelerated rehabilitation program resulted in clinically effective meniscal repair in 83% at the time of follow-up. Clinical outcome measures all improved.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.