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

Fibrin clot augmentation of high-risk meniscal repairs may result in clinical healing in up to 90% of cases

OBJECTIVE

While meniscal repair is preferable to meniscectomy, some cases may be at higher risk of failure if repaired. Incorporating fibrin clot (FC) into the repair has been proposed to improve healing rates. The purpose of this study was to determine the failure rates, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications of FC augmented meniscal repair for cases considered to be at higher risk of failure.

METHODS

A retrospective case series of all patients undergoing FC augmented repair of isolated meniscus tears between January 2016 and September 2021 was undertaken. All cases were thought be at higher risk of failure; they included chronic, radial, complex, horizontal cleavage, and tears not in the red - red zone. Patients were excluded if they had a concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction or if the repair was done through an open incision. The primary outcome was clinical failure defined as further repair or debridement. Secondary outcomes were PROMs and surgical complications. PROMs collected were Lysholm score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Knee Score and the Tegner score.

RESULTS

51 inside-out meniscal repairs using FC were performed in 50 patients (62% male). The mean age was 34 years (range 14-70). The median time from injury to repair was 122 days (range 4-1565). The medial meniscus was repaired in 63% of cases. Tear types included radial (31%) and complex (39%) and 71% of cases included repair of the white-white zone. 16% of cases were revision meniscal repairs. FC was used in 43% of isolated meniscal repairs during the study period. All patients were followed up to a median of 46 months (range 22-87 months). PROMs at a median of 30 months post-operatively showed statistically significant improvements. Five patients (10%) underwent further surgery for failure after median 21 months. Two patients (4%) reported sensory disturbance around their skin wounds, no other complications were reported. 13% of medial meniscal repairs failed, whereas only 5% of lateral meniscal repairs failed (p=0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

FC augmented meniscal repair performed for tears considered to be at higher risk of failure may result in acceptably low rates of clinical failure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

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.

Meniscal Repair Outcome in 3829 Patients With a Minimum Follow-up From 2 Years Up to 5 Years: A Meta-analysis on the Overall Failure Rate and Factors Influencing Failure

BACKGROUND

The importance of meniscal repair is widely accepted because of the association of loss of meniscal tissue with the development of early-onset knee arthritis. Many factors influencing the results of meniscal repair have been reported, but results remain controversial.

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis determines the pooled meniscal repair failure rate of studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years up to 5 years, with a mean follow-up of 43 months. Moreover, selected failure-influencing factors are analyzed.

STUDY DESIGN

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

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies published between January 2000 and November 2021 reporting on meniscal repair outcome with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The overall pooled failure rate and pooled failure rates for possible predictors were calculated. Random-effect models were used to pool failure rates, and effect estimates in the form of odds ratios with 95% CIs were established.

RESULTS

The initial literature search identified 6519 studies. A total of 51 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 3931 menisci were included with an overall failure rate of 14.8%. Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly lower failure rate for meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction compared with knees without any reported injury to the ACL (8.5% vs 14%; P = .043). The pooled failure rate for lateral meniscal repair was significantly lower than that for medial meniscal repair (6.1% vs 10.8%; P = .031). Pooled failure rates of all-inside and inside-out repair were not significantly different (11.9% vs 10.6%; P > .05).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis on close to 4000 patients demonstrates an overall meniscal repair failure rate of 14.8% at a minimum follow-up from 2 years up to 5 years. Meniscal repair remains a procedure with a high failure rate, especially within the first 2 postoperative years. This review and meta-analysis also identified clinically relevant factors associated with favorable outcomes such as concomitant ACL reconstruction or repair of the lateral meniscus. All-inside meniscal repair with the latest-generation devices yields failure rates of <10%. The failure mechanism and the time of failure is poorly documented; further studies are needed for a better understanding of the retear mechanism.

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).

Meniscal Tear Management Associated with ACL Reconstruction

Meniscal lesions often occur in association with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears at the moment of the injury or, secondarily, as a consequence of knee instability. Both ACL and meniscus lesions are associated with a higher risk of osteoarthritis. Adequate treatment of these lesions reduces the rate of degenerative changes in the affected knee. Meniscal tears should be addressed concomitantly with ACL reconstruction and the treatment must be oriented towards preserving the meniscal tissue anytime this is possible. Several options for approaching a meniscus tear are available. The meniscal suture should always be considered, and, if possible, meniscectomy should be the last choice. “Masterly neglect” is a valuable option in selected cases.

Editorial Commentary: Biologic Augmentation of Meniscus Repair Is Complex

In the setting of biological augmentation for meniscus repair, it is extremely important to evaluate all aspects, including effectiveness, costs, potential risks, benefits, and limitations. It seems that everything matters in healing: the aspirate source of the bioactive agents, cell content, presence of stem cells and their type, growth factors, cytokines, biomechanical scaffold, and the quality of the tissue. There are several differences among mesenchymal, adipose, and peripheral blood stem cells, with the cell origin affecting the differentiation potential towards bone, cartilage and ligament. Moreover, different aspirate sources and fibrin clots have different content in cells, growth factors, and cytokines. In this equation, it is not as simple as the more the better. Different doses of growth factors may have different effects in the different cell types. And as this was not complicated enough, synergistic phenomena between cells and between growth factors can play a huge role. Add to that the role of the biomechanical environment, the proper timing of the healing phases and the inherent patient characteristics. There is very, very much to learn, and finally, we acknowledge that not all menisci repairs can always heal.

The predictive factors that are associated with the number of sutures used during meniscal repair

Purpose

To investigate factors associated with the consumption of a large number of sutures during arthroscopic meniscus repair procedures.

Methods

All patients who received meniscal repair, with or without concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, in our hospital from January 2015 to December 2019 were included in the current study. Demographic data (sex, age, body mass index (BMI), and injury-to-surgery interval) and surgical data (the site of the tear, side of the meniscus, presence of an ACL rupture or not and the number of sutures) were retrospectively collected from our medical records. The number of sutures was divided into two groups (1–2 sutures versus > 2 sutures). The stitching process was implemented through an all-inside technique using a meniscal repair device (Fast-Fix; Smith & Nephew). According to the length and stability of the meniscal tear, one to seven sutures were used. Univariate analysis consisted of chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was then performed to adjust for confounding factors.

Results

A total of 242 patients, including 168 males and 57 females, was finally included. In the univariate analysis, we found that those patients who underwent meniscus repair within one month after meniscus tear were more likely to need fewer sutures than those who underwent surgery more than one month after injury (70/110 versus 59/115, p=0.062). In total, 75/109 (68.8%) lateral meniscal tears were repaired with fewer sutures than medial (34/72, 47.2%) and bilateral meniscus injuries (20/44, 45.4%; p=0.003). In the multivariate analysis, we found that the duration of injury (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.16–3.64, p=0.013), presence of an ACL injury (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.97–7.21, p< 0.001) and the side of the meniscus (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14–0.65, p=0.002) were associated with the number of sutures used during meniscal repair procedures.

Conclusions

Patients who underwent meniscal repair within one month after meniscus tear, especially lateral menisci tears, were more likely to need fewer sutures.

Study design

Case-control study; level of evidence, 3.

The Biomechanical Performance of the Latest All-Inside Meniscal Repair Devices

PURPOSE

To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of recently introduced meniscal repair devices with a hand-tied, inside-out meniscal suture in a human meniscus model.

METHODS

In detached adult human menisci, vertical longitudinal cuts were created 3 mm from the synovial-meniscal junction, simulating a bucket-handle meniscal tear. Each cut was repaired using a single device. Group 1 received a vertical mattress suture of No. 2-0 OrthoCord; group 2, TrueSpan device with PEEK (polyether ether ketone) anchors containing No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture; group 3, TrueSpan device with biodegradable poly-lactide-co-glycolide (PLGA) anchors containing No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture; group 4, Meniscal Cinch II device; group 5, AIR meniscal repair device; and group 6, FasT-Fix 360 device. All samples were preloaded at 5 N and cycled 200 times between 5 and 20 N. The specimens that survived cyclic loading were destructively tested at 12.5 mm/s. Endpoints included maximum load, displacement, stiffness, and failure mode.

RESULTS

The mean failure loads were as follows: 95.8 N for OrthoCord suture, 87.1 N for TrueSpan with PEEK, 84.6 N for TrueSpan with PLGA, 48.6 N for Meniscal Cinch II, 72.3 N for AIR, and 68.1 N for FasT-Fix 360. Repairs performed with OrthoCord suture (P = .002) and both TrueSpan devices (P < .03) but not the FasT-Fix 360 device or AIR device were statistically significantly stronger than Meniscal Cinch II repairs. Mean cyclic displacement measured 1.1 mm for OrthoCord, 1.5 mm for TrueSpan with PEEK, 1.5 mm for TrueSpan with PLGA, 2.1 mm for Meniscal Cinch II, 1.1 mm for AIR, and 1.4 mm for FasT-Fix 360. The Meniscal Cinch II device showed more displacement than all other devices (P < .05). The FasT-Fix 360, AIR, and Meniscal Cinch II devices failed by anchor pullout from the peripheral meniscus. OrthoCord and both TrueSpan devices failed by suture pulling through the bucket-handle tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

OrthoCord suture is stronger than the AIR, FasT-Fix 360, and Meniscal Cinch II devices. The TrueSpan device with PEEK and TrueSpan device with PLGA are stronger than the Meniscal Cinch II device. The Meniscal Cinch II device failed during cyclic loading with greater cyclic displacement than the AIR device, FasT-Fix 360 device, OrthoCord, and TrueSpan device with PEEK. The Meniscal Cinch II, AIR, and FasT-Fix 360 devices failed by anchor pullout, whereas OrthoCord and both TrueSpan devices failed by suture pull-through.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Some newly introduced all-inside meniscal repair devices show inferior failure strength compared with earlier versions that might adversely impact clinical outcomes.

All-inside Techniques for Meniscal Radial Root Tear Repair

Meniscal radial root tears can disrupt the load-bearing function of the meniscus and worsen instability in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Paracentral radial tears adjacent to the root (types 1, 2, and 4) repaired with a transtibial pullout suture technique can lead to over-medialization of the meniscal root and a high-tension nonanatomic repair. We propose 2 all-inside techniques for anatomic repair of medial and lateral meniscal radial root tears with (1) an all-inside meniscal repair device and (2) an antegrade suture passer. We present the technical requirements and tips for these techniques. For lateral meniscal radial root repair with an all-inside meniscal repair device, ideal viewing is from an anterolateral portal with device entry from an anteromedial portal to reduce the risk of vascular injury. We recommend at least 2 stitches across the tear, with the depth setting limited to 18 to 20 mm for a central stitch and 16 mm or less for a peripherally placed stitch. For root repair with an antegrade suture passer, viewing should be from an anteromedial portal with the passer entering from an anterolateral portal. At least 2 stitches should be placed across the tear, with 1 central and 1 peripheral or 1 superior and 1 inferior.

Arthroscopic pie-crusting release of the posteromedial complex of the knee for surgical treatment of medial meniscus injury

Background

An arthroscopic narrow posteromedial gap of the knee may cause failure of a meniscus operation. The posteromedial complex (PMC) of the knee, including the posterior part of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) and the posterior oblique ligament (POL), has a restrictive effect on the opening of the posteromedial gap of the knee in the half-extension position. Thus, we evaluated the radiological and clinical results of pie-crusting release of the PMC for arthroscopic meniscal surgery in tight knees.

Methods

Sixty patients with posterior injury of the medial meniscus were reviewed. All patients accepted arthroscopic pie-crusting release of the PMC. Fourty patients accepted meniscoplasty, and 20 patients accepted meniscal suturing. To evaluate the arthroscopic opening of the medial gap in 20° half-extension under 11-kg valgus stress, the width of the medial space before and after release were measured. During follow-up, the medial stability was evaluated by radiographic measurements of the joint space width (JSW) in 20° half-extension. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted to evaluate healing of the MCL and meniscus. Knee functions were evaluated using VAS (visual analogy score), Lysholm, IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) and Tegner scoring systems.

Results

In all patients, meniscus operations were performed without iatrogenic cartilage injury. After PMC release, the arthroscopic width of the medial space was 5.7 ± 0.5 mm, larger than that before release (2.5 ± 0.5 mm, p < 0.01). The follow-up time was 21.93 ± 7.04 months, there was no residual valgus laxity of the knee. The radiographic JSW was 5.97 ± 0.8 mm preoperatively, 9.2 ± 1.1 mm in the 1st week postoperatively, and 6.1 ± 0.9 mm by the 3rd postoperative month, showing no differences between preoperative and 3 months postoperative measurement (p > 0.05). For sutured meniscus, MRI showed healing in 15 patients while five had two-grade abnormal signals. VAS, Lysholm, IKDC and Tegner scores were 1.80 ± 0.51, 80.08 ± 3.74, 82.17 ± 4.64 and 5.48 ± 0.59, respectively, showing significant differences compared with the preoperative scores (5.57 ± 0.69, 48.17 ± 4.22, 51.42 ± 4.02 and 3.20 ± 0.68, respectively, p< 0.01).

Conclusions

Pie-crusting release of the PMC can increase the posteromedial space and improve the visual field of the knee under arthroscopy, while neither causing no residual valgus instability of the knee nor affecting the clinical outcome at the final follow-up.

Editorial Commentary: Meniscal Cartilage Suture in the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructed Knee; To Absorb or Not to Absorb: That Is the Question

When considering repair of the meniscal cartilages of the knee, the indications for repair must be carefully considered. The morphology of the tear, the zone of injury, and likely vascularity have an impact on patient selection. Patient factors, chronicity of tear, medial or lateral tear, and tear complexity all have a bearing on whether to repair or resect and how best to achieve stable repair. The consequences of meniscectomy are well established, and meniscal tissue resection comes at a cost. The success rates of meniscal cartilage repair are greater when performed in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Patient outcomes are better for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction when performed with meniscal repair than when partial meniscectomy is performed. The optimal configuration of sutures, the suture material used, and the type of suture technique are all important considerations. The focus of this commentary is on the use of absorbable versus nonabsorbable suture material.