Incidence and Risk Factors for Meniscal Cyst After Meniscal Repair

The incidence of meniscal cyst formation following meniscal repair using the all-inside suture anchor device is comparable to conventional techniques

Purpose

Post-operative meniscal cyst formation occurs following all-inside device meniscal repair. This study aimed to compare the incidence of cysts in patients who underwent meniscal repair with and without all-inside suture devices.

Methods

This retrospective study included 227 knees that underwent meniscal repair between 2021 and 2022. The incidence of post-operative meniscal cysts was compared between patients who underwent repair using an all-inside suture anchor device (Group SA) and those who did not use an anchor (Group NA), based on post-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Risk factors, such as the number of anchors used, were investigated. Using a subgroup analysis, the incidence of meniscal cysts based on the type of device used was investigated.

Results

Groups SA and NA comprised 125 and 102 knees, respectively. Group SA had 11 cases of cysts (9% incidence), whereas Group NA had 7 cases (7% incidence), and no statistically significant difference was observed (p = 0.63). Symptomatic cysts were observed in two patients (1.6%) in Group SA, whereas none was observed in Group NA (0%); the difference was not significant (p = 0.50). Factors such as the number of anchors and sutures used and MRI timing were not identified as risk factors. Cyst incidence varied according to anchor type: Stryker AIR+ (4 out of 55, 7%), Smith & Nephew Fast-Fix 360 (7 out of 56, 13%) and Arthrex Fiber Stitch (0 out of 26, 0%), with no significant difference found (p = 0.14).

Conclusion

The incidence of cysts in patients undergoing meniscal repair with an all-inside suture anchor device was 9%, showing no significant difference compared with Group NA. Cyst incidence was not affected by device type.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Biomechanical Comparison of All-Suture, All-Inside Meniscus Repair Devices in a Human Cadaveric Meniscus Model

OBJECTIVE

Newer all-suture, all-inside meniscus repair devices utilize soft suture anchors. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of 4 meniscus repair devices in human cadaver menisci: the JuggerStitch (all-suture, all-inside), the FiberStitch (all-suture, all-inside), a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) all-inside, and an inside-out device.

DESIGN

Forty human cadaver menisci were tested after creating 20 mm longitudinal tears in the posterior meniscus. Each knee was randomized to 1 of 4 meniscus repair groups: JuggerStitch (all-suture, all-inside), FiberStitch (all-suture, all-inside), FAST-FIX 360 (PEEK-based anchor all-inside), and inside-out (with BroadbandTM tape meniscus needles). For each meniscus, 2 devices were used to prepare vertical mattress repair construct. The specimens were tested by pre-conditioning 20 cycles between 5 N and 30 N and then the tear diastasis was measured, followed by distraction to failure phase after imposing a displacement at a rate of 0.5 mm/s.

RESULTS

Ten menisci were tested in each of the 4 groups. After pre-conditioning, there was no significant difference in the gap formation among groups (P = 0.212). The average failure load for the JuggerStitch, FiberStitch, PEEK all-inside, and inside-out was 384 N, 311 N, 207 N, and 261 N, respectively, with a significant difference between groups (P = 0.034). Post hoc analysis showed the JuggerStitch failure load was higher than the PEEK all-inside and inside-out (P = 0.005, and P = 0.045, respectively). There was no significant difference between the failure load of the JuggerStitch and FiberStitch (P = 0.225).

CONCLUSION

The JuggerStitch all-suture device, FiberStitch all-suture device, PEEK all-inside, and inside-out devices have similar biomechanical properties for gapping and stiffness. The JuggerStitch all-suture, all-inside device has superior failure load compared with the PEEK all-inside and inside-out repair for longitudinal meniscus tear repair.

Efficacy of meniscus suture absorbability on meniscus healing success rate via second-look arthroscopy after meniscal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To preserve the meniscus's function, repairing the torn meniscus has become a common understanding. After which, the search for the ideal suture material is continuous. However, it is still controversial about the efficacy of suture absorbability on meniscus healing.

METHODS

This review is designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

(1) Studies on meniscus repair; (2) Second-look arthroscopy was performed; (3) The meniscus was repaired by absorbable and non-absorbable sutures; (4) The healing condition of repaired meniscus via second-look arthroscopy was described.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

(1) Animal studies, cadaveric studies, or in vitro research; (2) Meniscus transplantation; (3) Open meniscus repair; (4) Reviews, meta-analysis, case reports, letters, and comments; (5) non-English studies. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database were searched up to October 2022. Risk of bias and methodology quality of included literature were assessed according to ROBINS-I and the modified Coleman Methodological Scale (MCMS). Descriptive analysis was performed, and meta-analysis was completed by RevMan5.4.1.

RESULTS

Four studies were included in the systematic review. Among them, three studies were brought into the meta-analysis, including 1 cohort study and 2 case series studies about 130 patients with meniscal tears combined with anterior cruciate ligament injury. Forty-two cases were repaired by absorbable sutures, and 88 were repaired by non-absorbable sutures. Using the fixed effect model, there was a statistical difference in the healing success rate between the absorbable and the non-absorbable groups [RR1.20, 95%CI (1.03, 1.40)].

CONCLUSION

In early and limited studies, insufficient evidence supports that non-absorbable sutures in meniscus repair surgery could improve meniscal healing success rate under second-look arthroscopy compared with absorbable sutures. In contrast, available data suggest that absorbable sutures have an advantage in meniscal healing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review was registered in the PROSPERO System Review International Pre-Registration System (Registration number CRD42021283739).

Using a Combined All-Inside, Inside-Out, and Outside-In Technique to Repair Bucket-Handle Medial Meniscal Tears Without a Safety Incision

We describe a combined all-inside, inside-out, and outside-in technique for the repair of unstable bucket-handle medial meniscal tears. Notably, a greater incidence of neurovascular complications has been associated with meniscal repair techniques that employ an accessory skin incision, especially when damage involves the body of the medial meniscus. However, with the operative knee in relative extension, passing inside-out needles anteromedial to the posterior horn and posterior to the semitendinosus tendon and saphenous nerve allows for the needles to exit the posteromedial knee through a "safe zone." Therefore, we reduce iatrogenic damage by avoiding the necessity of a large safety incision while still maintaining suture placement versatility and meniscal fragment stabilization. Thus, the objective of this Technical Note is to outline an efficient technique for treating bucket-handle medial meniscal tears that yields a strong, durable repair while avoiding damage to adjacent neurovascular structures and eliminating the need for a posteromedial safety incision.

Persistent Hemarthrosis of the Knee after Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair

Introduction

In this case report, we report a patient with complicated with persistent hemarthrosis following arthroscopic meniscal repair. Case Presentation. A 41-year-old male patient presented with persistent swelling of the knee 6 months after arthroscopic meniscal repair and partial meniscectomy performed for lateral discoid meniscal tear. The initial surgery was performed at another hospital. Four months after the surgery, swelling of the knee was noted when he resumed running. At his initial visit to our hospital, intra-articular blood accumulation was revealed via joint aspiration. A second arthroscopic examination performed 7 months after the initial procedure showed healing of the meniscal repair site and synovial proliferation. The suture materials identified during the arthroscopy were removed. Histological examination of the resected synovial tissue showed inflammatory cell infiltration and neovascularization. In addition, a multinucleated giant cell was identified in the superficial layer. After the second arthroscopic surgery, the hemarthrosis did not recur, and the patient was able to resume running without symptom one and a half years post-surgery.

Conclusion

Bleeding from the proliferated synovia at or near the periphery of the lateral meniscus was thought to be the cause of the hemarthrosis as a rare complication following arthroscopic meniscal repair.

All-Inside Meniscal Repair: A Historical View

Background:

All-inside meniscal repair first became popularized in the early 2000s. Since that time, there has been a wide variety of all-inside implants on the market with rapid changes and developments in recent years.

Indications:

Small, peripheral, longitudinal tears are best suited for all-inside repair, but this technique may even be used for large bucket handle tears especially when hybridized with an inside-out repair.

Technique Description:

A percutaneous release of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) with an 18-g spinal needle is frequently performed when working in the medial compartment to improve visualization and decrease risk of iatrogenic chondral injury. Close familiarity with the characteristics of the chosen all-inside device including device angle, modifiability of device angle, modifiability of needle depth, deployment method, and tensioning technique is important for obtaining reproducible results. Typically, obtaining a vertical mattress stitch configuration is optimal as it captures more circumferential collagen fibers in the repair.

Results:

Factors to consider when selecting an all-inside meniscal repair device include the ergonomics of the device, implant cost, availability, rigid versus suture-based anchor, core needle diameter, device flexibility, and percent of misfires.

Discussion:

Complications from use of all-inside meniscus repair devices include device failure, soft tissue entrapment, cyst formation, and injury to the popliteal artery. Outcomes, however, with current devices are good and comparable to inside-out meniscus repair with about a 90% return to sports rate at 12 months postoperatively. The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Clinical outcomes, healing rate, and presence of peri-meniscal cysts after all-inside meniscal repair in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective comparative study with magnetic resonance imaging assessment

PURPOSE

Meniscal repairs are the most common associated procedures during ACL reconstruction, but they present challenging indications and possible risks of complications or failures. The aim of the present study is to assess the clinical outcomes of all-inside meniscal repairs in the setting of ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Twenty patients with ACL reconstruction and all-inside meniscal repair were compared to 20 patients with isolated ACL reconstruction. All patients were prospectively evaluated pre-operatively, at four month, and 18-month follow-up with KT-1000, Kira accelerometer for pivot-shift, KOOS, Marx score, and SF-36. Meniscal healing and presence of peri-meniscal cysts were assessed on standardized 1.5-T MRIs performed at 18 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-one meniscal repairs were performed in 20 patients (81% medial, 19% lateral). At 18 months, 48% had complete healing, 38% had incomplete healing, and 14% had no healing. Peri-meniscal cysts were present in 33% of cases. Worst pre-operative KOOS pain (p = 0.0435) and ADL (p = 0 .0201) were present in patients with meniscal lesion, while no differences were present at four months and 18 months between patients with or without meniscal repair (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted stratifying patients according to meniscal healing or cyst presence, except of a lower Qol KOOS subscale in patients with peri-meniscal cysts (p = 0.0430).

CONCLUSIONS

Meniscal repairs produced good short-term results when performed in combination to ACL reconstruction. Full or partial healing at MRI was present in 86% of cases. One patient out of three developed peri-meniscal cysts.

Comparison of new and old all-inside suture devices in meniscal cyst formation rates after meniscal repair

PURPOSE

We compared the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed cyst formation rate after meniscal tear repair using a new all-inside suture device (N group) versus the older all-inside suture device (O group).

METHODS

Between October 2008 and July 2017, 94 consecutive menisci of 89 patients were diagnosed with meniscal tears and underwent arthroscopic meniscal repair using the all-inside suture device. Five of these patients were lost to follow-up within 12 months and were excluded from the study. The remaining 89 menisci were followed up for at least 12 months and were included in this retrospective cohort study. Older all-inside suture devices (FasT-Fix, Ultra FasT-Fix) were used until December 2012, while the new all-inside suture device (FasT-Fix 360) was used from January 2013 onwards. Meniscal cysts were detected on T2-weighted fat-suppressed MRI at 12 months postoperatively. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with the use of the new all-inside suture device and cyst formation.

RESULTS

In total, 36 and 53 menisci were included in the N and O groups, respectively. The incidence of meniscal cysts was significantly greater in the O group (14 out of 53, 26.4%) than in the N group (two out of 36, 5.56%) (P = 0.012). Two patients in the O group had symptomatic cysts that required removal. Multivariate logistic analyses showed that the cyst formation risk significantly decreased after using the new all-inside suture device than the older all-inside suture devices (odds ratio = 0.139; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The MRI-confirmed cyst formation rate after meniscal tear repair was significantly lower using the new than the older all-inside suture devices, indicating that the use of a low-profile device may decrease the cyst formation rate.

Isolated meniscus injuries in skeletally immature children and adolescents: state of the art

The prevalence of isolated meniscal injuries in children and adolescents is low; however, we see an increase mainly due to intensified sports-related activities at an early age. A meniscal repair should be attempted whenever possible as children present with increased meniscal healing potential. The diagnosis and management of meniscal tears involve both patient factors and tear characteristics: size, anatomical location and associated injuries. Special attention should be given to the feature of discoid menisci and related tears as they require a specific management plan. This state-of-the-art review highlights the most recent studies on clinical evaluation, surgical techniques, tips and tricks, pitfalls, outcomes, return-to-sports, geographical differences and future perspectives related to meniscal injuries in children and adolescents.

Arthroscopic Management of Meniscal Cysts: A Systematic Review

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the outcomes of arthroscopic management of meniscal cysts and to compare the results across the reported surgical techniques.

Methods

Following the PRISMA methodology, 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched from inception to June 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting outcomes on patients with meniscal cysts who underwent arthroscopic surgery. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to evaluate the study quality.

Results

Eighteen studies examining 753 patients (761 meniscal cysts; 92.5% in the lateral meniscus) were included. Overall, 486/736 (66.0%) patients underwent purely arthroscopic decompression, 174/736 (23.6%) received arthroscopic excision, 58/736 (7.9%) received arthroscopy assisted percutaneous drainage, and 18/736 (2.4%) received a combined procedure. The recurrence rate for meniscal cysts was 7.1% across all arthroscopic procedures; 8.3%, 3.4%, and 0% for arthroscopic decompression, arthroscopic excision, and arthroscopy assisted percutaneous drainage, respectively. A total of 79.3% of patients returned to the same level of sport and 85.7% had resolution or minimal knee symptoms after arthroscopic surgery for meniscal cysts. Patient perception of surgical outcomes after any type of arthroscopic surgery for meniscal cysts was reported by 5 studies, with 189/203 (93.1%) reporting satisfaction with their surgical procedure.

Conclusion

Based on current evidence, arthroscopic management of meniscal cysts yields satisfactory patient outcomes, low cyst recurrence rates and high return to sport rates regardless of the surgical technique. Rates of cyst recurrence were relatively higher with arthroscopic decompression versus excision and percutaneous drainage; however, prospective studies using modern surgical techniques are necessary to better evaluate the surgical outcomes and to compare those with nonoperative modalities, given that a significant proportion of the included articles in this review were relatively outdated.

Level of Evidence

Systematic review of level II and IV studies.

All-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Meniscal repair using all-inside devices has garnered popularity compared to inside-out repair, yet few studies directly compare the two techniques in terms meniscal healing rates, surgical time, patient outcomes and incidence of complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases. English-language studies comparing all-inside and inside-out arthroscopic meniscal repair techniques directly were included. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with at least 10 patients in each treatment arm were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed effect (when I2 < 50%) or random effects model (I2 ≥ 50%).

RESULTS

A total of 1042 studies were identified with seven being sui for inclusion (n = 505 patients). These comprised of one RCT two prospective and four retrospective, comparative, observational studies. Meta-analyses demonstrated that there was a significant reduction in operating time favouring all-inside repair (ratio of means [ROM] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.79; p = 0.0002) based on 3 studies (n = 208 patients). Based on 5 studies (n = 370 patients), there was no significant difference in meniscal healing rates between the groups (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.52-3.10; p = 0.61). Nerve injury was more common after inside-out repair. There was a 85% reduction in the odds of nerve injury with the all-inside technique (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.47; p = 0.0013). A qualitative data analysis suggested no difference in functional outcomes between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

All-inside meniscal repair is associated with reduced operative time and a lower odds of nerve injury complications compared to inside-out repair, without compromising meniscal healing or functional results.

Postoperative Knee and Shoulder

Arthroscopic surgery in the knee most commonly addresses ligament, meniscal, or articular cartilage abnormalities. Similarly, arthroscopic surgery of the shoulder most commonly addresses tendon and labral abnormalities. The expected postoperative MRI findings depend on both the procedure performed and the time since surgery. Identifying complications and failed procedures relies on both clinical and imaging evaluations.

Hybrid Inside-Out-Outside-In Meniscal Repair Through a Small Skin Incision

Although the updated generation of all-inside devices for meniscal repair is more convenient to deploy and can provide comparable clinical outcomes with those of the inside-out procedure, the latter is still a very useful technique, giving many advantages over the former. The critical drawback of the conventional inside-out technique is the need for preparation of the accessory incision to prevent the risk of soft-tissue entrapment and neurovascular injury while retrieving the exiting meniscal needles, especially at the posterior corner of the knee. To minimize the space volume of the incision, a small, bluntly dissected track guided by the first exiting meniscal needle is sufficient in our hybrid inside-out-outside-in technique. The guiding cannula for the first meniscal needle passage is a commercial inside-out device, whereas the guiding cannula for retrieval in the subsequent meniscal needle passages is a spinal needle applied in an outside-in manner via the small track. Subsequent meniscal needles can be inserted in an inside-out or outside-in manner according to the design of the suture construct.

Surgical treatment of complex meniscus tear and disease: state of the art

The meniscus is important for load distribution, shock absorption and stability of the knee joint. Meniscus injury or meniscectomy results in decreased function of the meniscus and increased risk of knee osteoarthritis. To preserve the meniscal functions, meniscal repair should be considered as the first option for meniscus injury. Although reoperation rates are higher after meniscal repair compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, long-term follow-up of meniscal repair demonstrated better clinical outcomes and less severe degenerative changes of osteoarthritis compared with partial meniscectomy. In the past, the indication of a meniscal repair was limited both because of technical reasons and due to the localised vascularity of the meniscus. Meanwhile, it spreads today as the development of the concept to preserve the meniscus and the improvement of meniscal repair techniques. Longitudinal vertical tears in the peripheral third are considered the 'gold standard' indication in terms of meniscus healing. Techniques for meniscal repair include 'inside-out', 'outside-in' and 'all-inside' strategies. Surgical decision-making depends on the type, size and location of the meniscus injury. Meniscal root tears substantially affect meniscal hoop function and accelerate cartilage degeneration; therefore, meniscus root repair is necessary to prevent the progression of osteoarthritis change. For symptomatic meniscus defects after meniscectomy, transplantation of allograft or collagen meniscus implant may be indicated, and acceptable clinical results have been obtained. Recently, meniscus extrusion has attracted attention due to increased interest in early osteoarthritis. The centralisation techniques have been proposed to reduce the meniscus extrusion by suturing the meniscus-capsule complex to the edge of the tibial plateau. Long-term clinical outcomes of this procedure may change the strategy of treating meniscus extrusion. When malalignment of the lower leg is accompanied with meniscus pathologies, knee osteotomies are a reasonable option to protect the repaired meniscus by unloading the pathological compartment. Advancements in biological augmentation such as bone marrow stimulation, fibrin clot, platelet-rich plasma, stem cell therapy and scaffolds have also expanded the indications for meniscus surgery. In summary, improved repair techniques and biological augmentation have made meniscus repair more appealing to treat that had previously been considered irreparable. However, further research would be necessary to validate the efficacy of these specialised technique.

Inside-Out Repair of the Meniscus in Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Absorbable Versus Nonabsorbable Sutures

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes of meniscal repair using absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in patients undergoing concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

Data of 142 patients who underwent meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using either absorbable or nonabsorbable sutures for longitudinal meniscal tear were retrospectively reviewed. Inside-out suture technique was used for all meniscal repairs. Weight bearing and flexion (>90°) were allowed after 6 weeks postoperatively. Clinical evaluations were assessed by the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity score preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up. MRI outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared to identify the successful healing (complete or partial healing) rate and incidence of additional meniscal tears. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the results of medial or lateral meniscus.

RESULTS

Eighty patients underwent meniscal repair using absorbable sutures (mean age, 26.3 ± 11.9 years) and 62 patients with nonabsorbable sutures (mean age, 27.2 ± 10.0 years). There were no differences in zone and length of meniscal tears and stability tests between the groups. At a 2-year follow-up, all clinical scores had improved in both groups but did not differ significantly between the groups. Successful healing rate based on 1-year postoperative MRI was not significantly different between the absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures (93.7% vs 96.8%, P = .469). However, the absorbable sutures showed a lower additional tear incidence than the nonabsorbable sutures (2.5% vs 9.6%, P = .031). Subgroup analysis showed that the successful healing rate was not significantly different between the suture materials in both the medial and lateral menisci.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of absorbable sutures leads to comparable healing rates to and lower incidence of additional tears than nonabsorbable sutures in patients undergoing meniscal repair with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Editorial Commentary: All-Inside Meniscal Repair Devices: Should We Cease and De-Cyst?

All-inside meniscal repair devices have the potential to simplify a technically difficult procedure, reduce the need for a skilled surgical assistant, reduce surgical times, improve cosmetic results, and decrease postoperative pain for the patient. On the other hand, the devices are more expensive than sutures, have technical issues of their own, and may have complications that are not associated with suture repair techniques. It remains up to the surgeon to choose and practice techniques that maximize patient benefit and minimize risk.