Comparable Outcomes After Bucket-Handle Meniscal Repair and Vertical Meniscal Repair Can Be Achieved at a Minimum 2 Years' Follow-up

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 Clinical studies not reporting outcomes or failure rates, older studies using outdated implants, animal studies, reviews, letters to the editor, case reports, cadaveric studies, and articles not written in the English language or with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.

Repair of bucket handle meniscus tears improves patient outcomes versus partial meniscectomy at the time of ACL reconstruction

Purpose

The aim of this study was to examine demographic and surgical factors that influence patient-reported knee function in patients who undergo anterior crucial ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with concurrent bucket-handle meniscal tear (BHMT) procedures. We hypothesized that repair of BHMT in the setting of concomitant ACLR and shorter time from injury to surgery would lead to improved patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

Forty-one patients (mean age: 28.0 ± 9.8 years, 72% male) with BHMT at the time of ACLR completed the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) via online survey at an average of 15.2 months postop. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics, including time from injury to surgery, were compared between repair (n = 22) and meniscectomy (n = 19) groups using one-way analysis of variances; distributions of sex, graft source, BHMT compartment and zone were compared between groups using χ 2 tests. The association between IKDC-SKF score, demographics and surgical characteristics was evaluated using multivariable linear regression. A priori alpha level was p < 0.05.

Results

Meniscal repair and meniscectomy groups differed based on graft source and BHMT zone but not IKDC-SKF score (p = 0.085). Patients undergoing ACLR with autograft (p = 0.003) and with red-red zone BHMT (p < 0.001) more often underwent meniscal repair. The regression model demonstrated longer time from injury to surgery (p = 0.049), red-red tear zone (p = 0.04) and meniscectomy (p = 0.008); these were predictive of poorer IKDC-SKF scores.

Conclusion

BHMT repair was more likely performed in ACL autograft and on red-red zone tears. Longer time from injury to surgery is an indicator of poorer IKDC-SKF score, as this may increase the risk of concomitant pathologies. White-white zone BHMTs are associated with better IKDC-SKF scores than red-red zone BHMTs, which may be due to the smaller volume of tissue removed during meniscectomy of white-white zone tears and the avoidance of iatrogenic complications of meniscal repair.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

High failure rate after medial meniscus bucket handle tears repair in the stable knee

BACKGROUND

It is nowadays recommended to "Save the meniscus". This paradigm is based on the affirmation that an extended meniscectomy exposes to the risk of long-term secondary osteoarthritis and the global failure rate of a longitudinal tear repair remains low, whether it is the medial or lateral meniscus, with or without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, each kind of lesion has to be studied separate.

PURPOSE

The study aimed to focus on a homogeneous population of isolated repair of the bucket handle tear (BHT) of the medial meniscus (MM) in patients with stable knees to evaluate failure rate at a minimum of three years of follow-up. The secondary objectives were to evaluate any risk factors or protective factors of failure, clinical outcomes, and secondary amount of meniscectomy in failure cases compared to the amount of meniscus fixed in the first surgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a BHT of the MM situated in the red-on-red or red-on white (RW) zone on a stable knee between January 2010 and December 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Failure was defined as a need for reoperation for recurrence of meniscal symptoms (pain, locking) on the medial side with per-operative confirmation of the absence of healing. The following parameters were studied: demographics (age, gender, BMI), time from injury to surgery, clinical scores (Tegner, Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC]), surgical findings (extent and zone of the tear), surgical management (number and type of suture).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were included. The mean follow-up was 77.2±24.4 [36-141] months. Twenty-seven (69%) failures were recorded. In 56% (15/27) of the reoperations, the meniscectomy amount was smaller than what it would have been done in the first surgery. All clinical scores improved significantly from pre- to post-operatively; all patients met minimal clinically important differences for all the scores. No risk factors were found significant in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Repairing an isolated BHT of the MM is associated with a high failure rate. Despite the failure, we observed that the meniscectomy area was smaller than documented in the primary surgery in most of the cases and repair must still be considered as the first option.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective cohort series.

Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears Might Not Be an Urgency: The Time to Meniscus Repair Does Not Seem to Affect the Mid-Term Outcome-A Retrospective Study of Sixty Tears with a Mean Follow-Up of 6 Years

Background: Bucket-handle meniscal tears are mostly treated arthroscopically. However, there is no clear evidence as to whether the time to surgery impacts the outcome and whether or not lesions should be treated urgently. Methods: Sixty patients were interviewed about the current status of their knee with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years (SD = 3.5). Forty-one patients underwent meniscus repair, and fifteen patients received partial resections. The primary outcome was the rate of reoperation after meniscus repair. Secondary outcomes were pain at rest and during exercise, return to sports, and Tegner and Lysholm scores. Results: The average time to surgery was 14.4 days, with no significant impact of surgical timing on the rate of reoperation. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in pain levels, return to sports, or Tegner and Lysholm scores based on the timing of surgery. Conclusions: In our cohort, the time to surgery was not a prognostic factor for the reoperation rate or postoperative outcome in repairing bucket-handle meniscal tears. Therefore, arthroscopic repair should not be performed in an emergency setting but conducted after careful planning by experienced arthroscopy surgeons. Regarding the return to sports, postoperative factors such as rehabilitation protocols or surgical techniques could be more important than the time to surgery.

Greater rate of return to play and re-injury following all-inside meniscal repair compared to the inside-out technique: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Inside-out and all-inside arthroscopic meniscal repairs are widely performed. However, it remains unclear which method promotes greater clinical outcomes. This study compared inside-out versus all-inside arthroscopic meniscal repair in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), failures, return to play, and symptoms.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Two authors independently performed the literature search by accessing the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus in February 2023. All clinical studies which investigated the outcomes of all-inside and/or inside-out meniscal repair were considered.

RESULTS

Data from 39 studies (1848 patients) were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 36.8 (9 to 120) months. The mean age of the patients was 25.8 ± 7.9 years. 28% (521 of 1848 patients) were women. No difference was found in PROMs: Tegner Activity Scale (P = 0.4), Lysholm score (P = 0.2), and International Knee Document Committee score (P = 0.4) among patients undergoing meniscal repair with all inside or inside-out techniques. All-inside repairs showed a greater rate of re-injury (P = 0.009) but also a greater rate of return to play at the pre-injury level (P = 0.0001). No difference was found in failures (P = 0.7), chronic pain (P = 0.05), reoperation (P = 0.1) between the two techniques. No difference was found in the rate of return to play (P = 0.5) and to daily activities (P = 0.1) between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic all-inside meniscal repair may be of special interest in patients with a particular interest in a fast return to sport, while, for less demanding patients, the inside-out suture technique may be recommended. High-quality comparative trials are required to validate these results in a clinical setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review.

The Modified PROMT Score: A Better Prognosticative Tool to Assess Traumatic Meniscal Tear Reparability

Background

Considering various factors that influence meniscal repairability, Ortho One PROMT score (OPS) was proposed in 2019. With an increased understanding of factors influencing meniscal repair and by analysis of OPS predictions and repair results, a modified PROMT score (MPS) has been formulated. The objective of this study is to assess the superiority of MPS over OPS.

Methods

Age, chronicity, and pattern of tears were found to be important contributors to false-negative results of OPS. Considering these factors, MPS was designed. A prospective, double-blinded study was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of both scores were calculated. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted.

Results

Of 133 meniscal tears, 100 met the inclusion criteria. In predicting meniscal repairability, OPS demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 90.32% and 83.33% medially and 64.71% and 79.41% laterally. MPS had sensitivity and specificity of 96.77% and 88.89% medially and 82.35% and 88.24% laterally. Both scores showed good statistical significance (p < 0.05) in predicting meniscal reparability. For medial meniscus repairability, area under the ROC curve was 0.868 for OPS and 0.928 for MPS. For lateral repairability, the area under the curve was 0.721 for OPS and 0.853 for MPS.

Conclusion

MPS will serve as a simple and more effective tool for surgeons to predict meniscal repairability, thus enhancing their pre-surgical preparedness. This tool will also help surgeons to realistically counsel their patients and to achieve optimal patient.

Clinical outcome and healing rate after meniscal bucket handle tear repair

BACKGROUND

Reports combining patient-reported outcome measures, clinical evaluation, and radiographic assessment of postoperative healing after arthroscopic repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMT) are scarce.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic repair for acute traumatic BHMTs between October 2011 and March 2016 with a minimum follow-up of two years were included. Postoperative outcome scores comprised the International Knee Documentation Society Score (IKDC), Lysholm score, Tegner activity score (TAS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Clinical meniscal healing failure was assessed according to Barrett's criteria. Side-to-side difference in knee laxity was measured using KT-2000. Radiographic healing was assessed by 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and classified according to Henning's criteria at final follow-up.

RESULTS

Forty patients with a mean age of 32.0 ± 11.5 years were available for follow-up after 51.8 ± 14.3 months. Revision surgery by means of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy was performed in four patients (10%) prior to the follow-up visit. The clinical healing rate was 83.3% at final follow-up. Mean IKDC score was 82.8 ± 13.8 and Lysholm score was 77.4 ± 24.8. Of all patients, 87.5% reached or exceeded the patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) criteria for the IKDC score at final follow-up. The median TAS was 6 and VAS for pain was 0.46 ± 0.9. Side-to-side difference in knee laxity was higher in patients with concomitant ACL reconstruction (2.1 ± 2.7 mm) compared to isolated BHMTs (1.0 ± 2.0 mm). MR examination showed 69.4% healed, 25.0% partially healed, and 5.6% unhealed menisci.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent repair for acute traumatic BHMTs achieved good to excellent clinical outcome along with a high rate of meniscal healing at a minimum follow-up of two years. Clinical and radiological healing rates were similarly satisfactory and most patients exceeded the PASS criteria for the IKDC score. Patients were able to reach a high postoperative activity level.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case Series; IV.

Long-term quality of life, work limitation, physical activity, economic cost and disease burden following ACL and meniscal injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the OPTIKNEE consensus

OBJECTIVE

Determine the long-term health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), work limitation, physical activity, health/economic cost and disease burden of traumatic ACL and/or meniscal injury. Findings will inform OPTIKNEE evidence-based consensus recommendations.

DESIGN

Random-effects meta-analysis evaluated HRQoL (SF-36/SF-12/VR-12 Physical Component Scores (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)) stratified by time postinjury, and pooled mean differences (95% CI) between ACL-injured and uninjured controls. Other outcomes were synthesised descriptively. Risk-of-bias (RoB) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) were assessed.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL searched inception: 22 November 2021.

ELIGIBILITY

Studies reporting HRQoL, work limitations, physical activity levels, health/economic costs or disease burden, ≥2 years post-ACL and/or meniscal injury.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included (10 high-RoB, 28 susceptible-to-some-bias and 12 low-RoB). Meta-analysis (27 studies, very low certainty of evidence) estimated a pooled mean (95% CI) PCS of 52.4 (51.4 to 53.4) and MCS of 54.0 (53.0 to 55.0) 2-14 years post-ACL injury. Pooled PCS scores were worse >10 years (50.8 (48.7 to 52.9)) compared with 2-5 years (53.9 (53.1 to 54.7)) postinjury. Excluding high-RoB studies, PCS scores were worse in ACL-injured compared with uninjured controls (-1.5 (-2.9 to -0.1)). Six studies (low certainty of evidence) informed a pooled EQ-5D score of 0.83 (0.81 to 0.84). Some individuals experienced prolonged work absenteeism and modified activities ≥2 years post-ACL injury. ACL injury was associated with significant direct and indirect costs, and early ACL reconstruction may be less cost-effective than rehabilitation. Only three studies evaluated meniscal injury outcomes (all evaluated HRQoL).

CONCLUSION

There is a very-low certainty of evidence that PCS scores ≥2 years post-ACL injury are worse than uninjured controls and decline over time, whereas MCS scores remain high. ACL injury can result in prolonged work absenteeism and high health/economic costs. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term burden of traumatic meniscal injury.

Return to sports after bucket handle medial meniscus tear repair using inside out technique in recreational sports players

The main purpose of our study is to determine the outcomes of bucket handle medial meniscus tears repaired with the inside out technique in recreational sports players, and the return of these to pre-injury sports levels. 41 athletes with medial meniscus bucket handle tear were included in the study. 28 cases were associated with ACL tear while rest were isolated tears. Medial meniscus repair was done exclusively with arthroscopy assisted inside out technique. Lysholm score, IKDC score and Tegner staging were used to evaluate functional status of patients with minimum 1-year follow-up. Data was analyzed using Wilcoxon Matched pairs test, and Friedman test. All patients were examined clinically at regular intervals. Lysholm score and IKDC score showed significant increase in their values. Tegner staging showed no significant change compared to their preinjury game level. On VAS pain scale, there was significant decrease in their pain at regular follow up intervals. 2 patients had re-tears of the repaired medial meniscus. Repairing bucket handle tears of the medial meniscus in recreational sports players with the inside out technique yields good results in terms of clinical and functional outcomes. It successfully allows them to return to sports at 1 year.

Surgical Outcomes After Bucket-Handle Meniscal Repairs: Analysis of a Large Contained Cohort

BACKGROUND

Representing approximately 10% of all meniscal tears, bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs) are large longitudinal vertical tears that have an attached fragment flipped into the intercondylar notch. Meniscectomy often results in significant meniscal loss and increased joint loading. Alternatively, meniscal repair attempts to restore the function of the meniscus and aims to preserve joint mechanics.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term risk of subsequent ipsilateral knee surgery in patients who underwent a bucket-handle meniscal repair (BHMR), and to assess risk factors associated with subsequent knee surgical intervention.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

We performed an electronic health record search for all patients aged 12 to 65 years who underwent arthroscopic knee meniscal repairs for BHMT (2011-2018). We excluded patients who had a previous BHMR, did not have magnetic resonance imaging of the knee within 60 days before BHMR, lacked active membership in Kaiser insurance in the year before and after BHMR, or underwent meniscectomy before BHMR. All patients were followed until December 31, 2019, with censoring at death or membership disenrollment. Primary outcomes included ipsilateral knee procedures overall and by type (ie, repeat meniscal repair and meniscectomy); secondary outcomes included other surgical interventions of the same knee, any contralateral knee surgery, deep surgical-site infection, and deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 1359 patients with a median age of 24 years (interquartile range [IQR], 17-34) who underwent BHMR for a BHMT. During the follow-up period (median, 50.2 months [IQR, 32.3-60.6]), 495 subsequent ipsilateral procedures were performed in 274 (20.2%) patients, and the median time to the first procedure was 10.6 months (IQR, 4.1-23.5). An overall 59 (4.3%) patients underwent repeat meniscal repair, and 165 (12.1%) had a subsequent meniscectomy of the same knee. Significant risk factors for subsequent ipsilateral procedures included younger age, 12 to 18 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.77 [95% CI, 1.84-18.08]) and 19 to 30 years (aOR, 3.65 [95% CI, 1.17-11.36]), as well as normal and overweight body mass index (aOR, 2.84 [95% CI, 1.29-6.23] and 2.34 [95% CI, 1.06-5.17], respectively). Patients undergoing concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) at the initial BHMR had a lower risk of undergoing subsequent surgery (aOR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.87]) than those without concomitant ACLR.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest reported study on outcomes after BHMR in a contained cohort. One-fifth of patients underwent subsequent ipsilateral surgery during follow-up, with 4.3% receiving a repeat meniscal repair and 12.1% experiencing a meniscectomy. Risk factors for subsequent surgery of the same knee included younger age and normal or overweight body mass index. Concomitant ACLR at time of BHMR reduced the risk of subsequent reoperation.

Significant risk of arthrolysis after simultaneous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and treatment of dislocated bucket-handle meniscal tear

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative stiffness is a feared complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. In case of associated dislocated bucket-handle meniscal tear (BHMT), reduction is urgent, with ligament reconstruction in the same surgical step.

HYPOTHESIS

Treatment of associated dislocated BHMT in ACL reconstruction incurs increased risk of arthrolysis for stiffness in flexion and/or extension.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective exposure/non-exposure study included 208 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction between January 2009 and December 2018. Those showing dislocated medial or lateral BHMT at surgery (group A) were compared versus those free of meniscal lesions (group B). The main objective was to assess the risk of surgical revision for arthrolysis within 12 months. Group A included 69 patients: 40 male (58%), 29 female (42%); mean age, 29.0±11.2 years. Group B included 139 patients: 68 male (49%), 71 female (51%); mean age, 30.0±10.4 years. Patients were classified according to age of ACL tear, as acute (<6 weeks), subacute (6 weeks to 6 months), or chronic (>6 months).

RESULTS

Risk of revision surgery for arthrolysis was greater in Group A than in Group B, with 7 (10.1%) and 4 (2.9%) cases respectively (p=0.044), with 12-month arthrolysis-free survival of 89.7% (95% CI, 82.7-97.2) and 97.1% (95% CI, 94.3-99.9) respectively (p=0.023). Stiffness in flexion and extension was more frequent in Group A at 6 weeks and at 6 months (p>0.05). Risk of arthrolysis did not significantly differ according to accident-to-surgery time in the overall series (p=0.421) or specifically in Group A (p=0.887). The BHMT was sutured in 39 cases (56.5%), including 3 failures (7.7%) at 12 months' follow-up. Arthrolysis was required in 6 patients treated by meniscal suture (15.4%) and just 1 patient treated by meniscectomy (3.3%) (p=0.128).

CONCLUSION

The present study confirmed increased risk of surgical revision for arthrolysis after ACL reconstruction in case of dislocated BHMT treated in the same surgical step. Age of ACL tear and type of BHMT treatment (suture or meniscectomy) showed no impact on postoperative stiffness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective exposure/non-exposure cohort study.

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.

Mid-term evaluation of clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic medial longitudinal and bucket-handle meniscus repair

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes following the arthroscopic medial meniscal repair.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients (42 males, 8 females; mean age: 32.9±7.6 years; range, 17 to 48 years) who underwent arthroscopic repair for longitudinal and bucket-handle medial meniscal tears between March 2005 and October 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups as those having a longitudinal tear (patient group, n=31) and having a bucket-handle tear (control group, n=19). Preoperative and final follow-up functional outcomes were evaluated using the Lysholm Knee Score (LKS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) score, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 61.7±22.8 (range, 36 to 110) months. The mean preoperative LKS, IKDC score, TAS, and KOOS scores were significantly improved at the final postoperative follow-up (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in functional outcome scores between longitudinal and bucket-handle repairs (p>0.05), and isolated repairs and concomitant meniscal repair and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic meniscal repair provides similar mid-term functional and clinical outcomes for longitudinal and bucket-handle medial meniscal tears. Concomitant meniscal repair does not seem to affect meniscal healing.

All-inside repair of bucket handle meniscus tears - Mid-term outcomes with postoperative magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate our results of bucket handle meniscus tear (BHMT) repairs with an all-inside repair technique using postoperative radiological imaging to evaluate meniscus reduction and healing and use them as criteria for evaluation of repair success.

METHODS

Prospective recruitment of 20 patients with 21 BHMT repairs performed with an all-inside techniqueover a period from 2013 to 2015. All patients had an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form (SKF), Lysholm Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Tegner Activity Level Scale obtained pre-operatively and at a minimum of 24 months after surgery. All patients had postoperative knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed between 18 and 24 months after surgery to assess the stability or failure of their repairs.At 5 years after surgery, the patients were assessed with regard to whether they had undergone repeat surgery or not.

RESULTS

At 2 years, the mean postoperative SKF, Lysholm and KOOS grand scores were 78.9, 88.5 and 86.8, respectively. The mean pre-injury Tegner Activity Scale was 7.6 and postoperatively it was 6.0. There was a significant difference in all pre- and postoperative outcome scores (P < 0.01). The postoperative MRIs showed that 19 of the 21 BHMT repairs had stable reduction of the tear fragment and two patients had displacement of the torn bucket handle fragment. At 5 years, one patient had undergone revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

BHMTs can be repaired with all-inside techniques with good results and successful outcomes.

Indirect Magnetic Resonance Arthrography May Help Avoid Second Look Arthroscopy for Assessment of Healing After Bucket Handle Medial Meniscus Repairs: A Prospective Clinico-Radiological Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were: (1) to analyze the MRI healing rates of bucket-handle meniscus repair; (2) to compare the accuracy of assessment of meniscus healing for conventional MRI and Indirect Magnetic Resonance Arthrography (IMRA); and (3) to identify patients who may require second-look arthroscopy after meniscus repair.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational case series of thirty-seven patients with repaired bucket-handle medial meniscus tear with a minimum one year follow-up. Meniscus healing rates were assessed on direct MRI and IMRA using Henning's criteria. At the same time, patients' symptoms were evaluated according to Barrett's criteria and functional outcomes were recorded using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Osteoarthritis and Outcomes Score (KOOS) and Tegner-Lysholm scores. A further clinical review was performed 18 months after the imaging to assess the evolution of symptoms.

RESULTS

At a mean of 22.3 ± 7.8 months after the meniscus repair, 56.7% patients showed complete healing and 40.5% patients demonstrated incomplete repair healing on IMRA. 52% patients with complete healing and 40% patients with incomplete healing demonstrated meniscus symptoms. At the second clinical review, 19% patients with complete healing and 20% patients with incomplete healing had meniscus symptoms. There was no co-relation between symptoms, PROMs and healing on MRI.

CONCLUSION

Indirect MR arthrography offers distinct advantages over direct MRI for assessment of meniscus healing, especially in symptomatic patients. Patient-reported outcome measures and symptomatology are not co-related with the healing status of the meniscus and they resolve in the majority on longer follow-up. A more conservative approach guided by IMRA to assess meniscus healing will avoid early re-operations.

Technique for All-Inside Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscus Tears

Bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMT) remain a challenge to treat due to their complex pathology and technical difficulty. Subtotal meniscectomy has shown to improve symptoms early but leads to accelerated osteoarthritis in the affected compartment and poor long-term outcomes. BHMT repair and meniscal preservation is the preferred option. This can be performed with inside-out, all-inside, or hybrid meniscus repair techniques. All-inside meniscus repair avoids the need for additional safety incisions, trained assistants for suture passing, and reduce concerns of soft-tissue and neurovascular complications. In this Technical Note, we detail our all-inside technique for BHMT technique and share tips for a successful repair.

Arthroscopic Procedure for Chronic Isolated Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears

Arthroscopic treatment is the treatment of choice in bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs). Following BHMT, however, surgery failure rates are approximately 20% in the literature. Achieving the healing of BHMT is difficult. This is worse in chronic situations because the torn meniscus is deformed, leading to nonanatomical reduction. Some authors have reported greater failure rates, especially in the early postoperative period. In isolated BHMTs, the failure rate is greater because of inadequate and incomplete repairs due to the tight medial compartment. Multiple techniques for possible reduction of failure rate have been described. We describe an arthroscopic technique for treating chronic isolated BHMT using the technique of subcutaneously releasing the posterior fibers of the medial collateral ligament to provide adequate space for arthroscopy, meniscal reduction, and repair. A combined inside-out and all-inside repair technique was used to enhance anatomic reduction, stable fixation, surface fixation (rather than the usual suture-points fixation), and biologic healing in repairable chronic BHMTs.

Inside-out Repair of Extensive Meniscal Tears Using Posteromedial and Posterolateral Neurovascular Protective Windows

Three popular repair techniques for preserving the torn meniscus are the all-inside, outside-in, and inside-out techniques. Among these, the inside-out technique has shown low failure rates, and it therefore remains the gold-standard technique for repairing the torn meniscus. For extensive and chronic meniscal tears, proper use of this technique has become fundamental for knee surgeons. Nevertheless, challenges in using this technique include a higher risk of catching the neurovascular bundles on the posteromedial and posterolateral sides of the knee and difficulties in reducing and stabilizing chronically displaced meniscal fragments. In this article, the inside-out technique is revisited with an emphasis on anatomic details of how to avoid the neurovascular bundles while addressing extensive and chronic meniscal lesions.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Subsequent Meniscal Surgery After Successful Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

One of the goals of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a meniscal protective effect on the knee. Despite the advancement of ACL reconstruction techniques, subsequent meniscal tears after ACL reconstruction remain a problem, and the risk factors for recurring lesions are still unclear.

PURPOSE

To investigate the incidence of subsequent meniscal surgery after primary ACL reconstruction without revision ACL surgery and to determine the risk factors associated with this reoperation.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Overall, 518 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between 2004 and 2012 at one instution participated in this study. Data on body mass index, graft type and femoral tunnel-drilling technique of ACL reconstruction, and location and type of meniscal injury and its treatment at ACL reconstruction were collected from medical records. Clinical outcomes were investigated, including side-to-side difference of anterior laxity, pivot-shift grade, and subsequent meniscal surgery without ACL insufficiency (at minimum 2-year follow-up).

RESULTS

The prevalence of tears to the medial meniscus (MM) at the primary ACL reconstruction was 43.6% (226/518), 140 of which were repaired; on the contrary, tears of the lateral meniscus (LM) had a prevalence of 55.8% (289/518), 42 of which were repaired. At a mean 30.3 months (range, 8-124 months) after ACL reconstruction, 20 patients (3.9%; 14 MM tears, 3 LM tears, 3 MM + LM tears) required meniscal surgery without ACL reinjury or recurrence of instability. Of these, 14 MMs and 3 LMs had been repaired at primary ACL reconstruction. The failure rates of repaired MM and LM were 10.0% (14/140) and 7.1% (3/42), respectively. The failure rate of MM repair using the all-inside technique (6/36) was significantly higher compared with no treatment, inside-out repair, or partial resection (P = .045). In multiple regression analysis, the presence of MM injury at the time of ACL reconstruction (odds ratio [OR], 7.81; P = .003), the side-to-side difference of postoperative anterior tibial translation (OR, 1.91; P = .032), and follow-up period after ACL reconstruction (OR, 1.02; P = .003) were risk factors of subsequent meniscal surgery after ACL reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of subsequent meniscal surgery after successful ACL reconstruction was <5%. Presence of MM tear at the time of ACL reconsturuction, small amount of increased anterior laxity, and long-term period after ACL reconstruction were predictive of subsequent meniscal surgery.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Augmentation for Isolated Arthroscopic Meniscal Repairs Leads to Significantly Lower Failure Rates: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

Background:

Studies have reported relatively high failure rates of isolated meniscal repairs. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been suggested as a way to increase growth factors that enhance healing.

Purpose:

To compare (1) meniscal repair failures and (2) patient-reported outcomes after isolated arthroscopic meniscal repair augmented with and without PRP.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Multiple databases were searched for studies that compared outcomes of isolated arthroscopic meniscal repair augmented with PRP versus without PRP in human patients. Failures and patient-reported outcome scores were reported for each study and compared between groups. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I² for each outcome measure before meta-analysis. Study methodological quality was analyzed. Continuous variable data were reported as mean and standard deviation from the mean. Categorical variable data were reported as frequency with percentage. All P values were reported with significance set at P < .05.

Results:

Five articles were analyzed (274 patients [110 with PRP and 164 without PRP]; 65.8% male; mean age, 29.1 ± 4.6 years; mean follow-up, 29.2 ± 22.1 months). The risk of meniscal repair failure ranged from 4.4% to 26.7% for PRP-augmented repairs and 13.3% to 50.0% for repairs without PRP. Meniscal repairs augmented with PRP had significantly lower failure rates than repairs without PRP (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90; P = .03). One of the 5 studies reported significantly higher outcomes in the PRP-augmented group versus the no-PRP group for the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (P < .05 for all). The remaining 4 studies reported no significant difference between groups with regard to outcomes for the IKDC, Lysholm knee scale, visual analog scale for pain, or Tegner activity level.

Conclusion:

Although the studies were of mostly of low quality, isolated arthroscopic meniscal repairs augmented with PRP led to significantly lower failure rates (10.8% vs 27.0%; odds ratio, 0.32; P = .03) as compared with repairs without PRP. However, most studies reported no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes.

[Clinical observation of arthroscopic all-inside combined with outside-in "suture loop" repair for meniscus bucket-handle tear]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of arthroscopic all-inside combined with outside-in "suture loop" repair for meniscus bucket-handle tear (BHT).

METHODS

Between August 2016 and May 2019, 44 case of meniscus BHT were treated with arthroscopic all-inside combined outside-in "suture loop". There were 29 males and 15 females with an average age of 26.6 years (range, 18-42 years). The causes of injury included sports injury in 31 cases, falling injury in 7 cases, and sprain in 6 cases. There were 32 cases of medial meniscus posterior horn tears and 12 cases of lateral meniscus posterior horn tears. The disease duration ranged from 6 weeks to 3 months. Thirty-three cases were complicated with anterior cruciate ligament rupture. All patients had normal lower limb alignment. The preoperative Lysholm score was 42.1±9.1. According to the evaluation criteria of MRI and Barrett et al., the healing of meniscus was evaluated, and the effectiveness was evaluated by Lysholm score.

RESULTS

All the 44 patients were followed up 8-36 months with an average of 16.8 months. At last follow-up, according to the evaluation criteria of Barrett et al., 39 cases were clinically healed, 5 cases were not healed, the clinical healing rate was 88.6%; according to MRI evaluation, 32 cases were completely healed, 7 cases were partially healed, and 5 cases were not healed, the total healing rate was 88.6%, and the complete healing rate was 72.7%. Lysholm score was 87.8±4.8, which was significantly different from that before operation ( t=31.060, P=0.000).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic all-inside combined with outside-in "suture loop" repair is a reliable and effective method for the meniscus BHT, which can obtain good joint function.

Evidence-based Risk Stratification for Sport Medicine Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Orthopaedic practices have been markedly affected by the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the ban on elective procedures, it is impossible to define the medical urgency of a case solely on whether a case is on an elective surgery schedule. Orthopaedic surgical procedures should consider COVID-19-associated risks and an assimilation of all available disease dependent, disease independent, and logistical information that is tailored to each patient, institution, and region. Using an evidence-based risk stratification of clinical urgency, we provide a framework for prioritization of orthopaedic sport medicine procedures that encompasses such factors. This can be used to facilitate the risk-benefit assessment of the timing and setting of a procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Arthroscopic procedure for revision of failed isolated bucket-handle meniscal tear repair

Surgery failure rates average 20% following bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMT) repairs in the literature. Achieving the healing of BHMT is difficult, how much more in revision cases. Some authors have reported higher failure rates especially in the early postoperative period and in younger patients. Multiple techniques and augmentations to enhance biologic healing and reduce failure rate have been described. We describe an arthroscopic technique for successfully revising a failed BHMT repair using the technique of percutaneously releasing the posterior fibers of the medial collateral ligament to provide adequate space for arthroscopy, refreshing of the torn surfaces, bed trephination before reduction and repair. We concluded that a combined double-level inside out vertical sutures with horizontal reinforcement and all-inside technique using fast fix give anatomic reduction, stable fixation, surface contact, and increased potential for biologic healing in failed BHMT repairs. Coupled with adequate rehabilitation programs, this technique has reduced the failure rate in revision cases and enhances early return to sport.

Varus alignment aggravates tibiofemoral contact pressure rise after sequential medial meniscus resection

PURPOSE

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of medial meniscus tears and varus alignment are considered independent risk factors for increased medial compartment load, thus contributing to the development of medial osteoarthritis. The purpose of this biomechanical study was to investigate the effect of lower limb alignment on contact pressure and contact area in the knee joint following sequential medial meniscus resection. It was hypothesized that a meniscal resection of 50% would lead to a significant overload of the medial compartment in varus alignment.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees were axially loaded with a 750 N compressive force in full extension with the mechanical axis rotated to intersect the tibia plateau at 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% and 70% of its width. Tibiofemoral mean contact pressure (MCP), peak contact pressure (PCP), and contact area (CA) of the medial and lateral compartment were measured separately using pressure-sensitive films (K-Scan 4000, Tekscan) in four different meniscal conditions, respectively, intact, 50% resection, 75% resection, and total meniscectomy.

RESULTS

Medial MCP was significantly increased when comparing the intact meniscus to each meniscal resection in all tested alignments (p < 0.05). Following meniscal resection of 50%, MCP was significantly higher with greater varus alignment compared to valgus alignment (p < 0.05). Similarly, medial PCP was higher at varus alignment compared to valgus alignment (p < 0.05). Further resection to 75% and 100% of the meniscus resulted in a significantly higher medial PCP at 30% of tibia plateau width compared to all other alignments (p < 0.05). Medial CA of the intact meniscus decreased significantly after 50%, 75% and 100% meniscal resection in all alignments (p < 0.05). Lateral joint pressure was not significantly increased by greater valgus alignment.

CONCLUSION

Lower limb alignment and the extent of medial meniscal resection significantly affect tibiofemoral contact pressure. Combined varus alignment and medial meniscal resection increased MCP and PCP within the medial compartment, whereas valgus alignment prevented medial overload. As a clinical consequence, lower limb alignment should be considered in the treatment of patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy with concomitant varus alignment. In patients presenting with ongoing medial joint tenderness and effusion, realignment osteotomy can be a surgical technique to unload the medial compartment.

Inside-Out Bucket-Handle Meniscus Repair With a Single-Handed Self-Advancing Zone-Specific Meniscus Repair Device

Meniscus tears are among the most common knee injuries in the general population and often are treated arthroscopically with a meniscus repair. Of the various meniscus repair techniques available, the inside-out meniscus tear is considered the gold standard due to its versatility and good clinical outcomes. The purpose of this Technical Note and accompanying video is to describe an inside-out bucket-handle meniscus repair using a single handed, self-advancing meniscus repair device with an interchangeable zone-specific multicannula system to decrease the technical difficulty and operative time of the repair.

Influence of Medial Meniscus Bucket-Handle Repair in Setting of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction on Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics: A Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To compare the impact of an inside-out repair versus meniscectomy of a medial meniscus bucket-handle tear in restoring native contact areas and pressures across the tibial plateaus in the setting of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were tested in 6 knee conditions (1: intact; 2: ACL torn and bucket-handle tear of medial meniscus, flipped; 3: bucket-handle tear of medial meniscus, reduced; 4: bucket-handle tear of medial meniscus, repaired via inside-out vertical mattress suture technique; 5: ACLR with bone patella tendon bone autograft and bucket-handle repair; 6: ACLR and medial meniscus bucket-handle tear debridement) at 4 flexion angles (0°, 30°, 45°, and 60°), under a 1,000-N axial load. Contact area and pressure were measured with Tekscan sensors.

RESULTS

ACLR with a concurrent medial meniscectomy for a medial meniscus bucket-handle tear resulted in significantly decreased contact area (P < .05) and increased mean and peak pressure in both the medial and lateral compartments across all tested flexion angles (P < .05). The ACLR with medial meniscectomy state also demonstrated significantly lower contact area than the bucket-handle repair state between 30° and 60° of flexion (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Resection of a bucket-handle medial meniscus tear concurrent with an ACLR resulted in significant increases in mean and peak contact pressures in not only the medial but also the lateral compartment. Preservation of the medial meniscus in the face of a bucket-handle tear is essential to more closely restore native tibiofemoral biomechanics.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The increased mean and peak tibiofemoral contact pressure seen with excision of a bucket-handle medial meniscus tear would over time result in increased cartilaginous degradation and resultant osteoarthritis. Decreasing both of these factors through concomitant ACLR and inside-out bucket-handle meniscal repairs should improve patient outcomes by restoring knee biomechanics and kinematics closer to that of the native state.

Clinical Outcomes of Inside-Out Meniscal Repair According to Anatomic Zone of the Meniscal Tear

Background

There is significant discrepancy in the reported vascularity within the meniscus, and a progressively diminishing blood supply may indicate a differential healing capacity of tears that is dependent on the affected meniscal zone.

Purpose

To examine the outcomes after inside-out meniscal repair in all 3 meniscal vascularity zones.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Patients were included if they underwent inside-out meniscal repair by a single surgeon between 2010 and 2014 and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the meniscal tear location (red-red, red-white, and white-white zones) as determined during an intraoperative assessment. Patient-reported outcome scores were obtained at final follow-up.

Results

A total of 173 patients (mean age, 33.6 ± 14.3 years) were included, with a mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 0.9 years. All patients demonstrated significant improvements with inside-out meniscal repair from preoperatively to postoperatively, regardless of the meniscal tear location. Patients who underwent meniscal repair in the red-red and red-white zones had significantly increased postoperative Tegner, Lysholm, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores compared with patients who underwent meniscal repair in the white-white zone (P < .05). Patients who underwent acute repair (≤6 weeks) demonstrated significantly higher improvements on the Tegner activity scale (acute: 5.8 ± 2.2; chronic: 4.6 ± 2.2; P = .001) and Lysholm score (acute: 85.6 ± 13.3; chronic: 80.8 ± 13.5; P = .025) compared with patients treated beyond 6 weeks from injury, regardless of the meniscal tear zone. Patients with grade IV femoral condyle chondral lesions at the time of surgery had significantly inferior outcomes compared with patients with grade I through III chondral lesions, regardless of the meniscal tear zone. Three patients (1.7%) subsequently underwent revision inside-out repair, and 3 (1.7%) underwent partial meniscectomy.

Conclusion

Patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair demonstrated significant improvements on subjective outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up, regardless of the meniscal tear zone. Inside-out meniscal repair is recommended for potentially reparable meniscal tears in all 3 vascular zones; however, improved outcomes can be achieved when performed acutely, in the absence of full-thickness femoral condyle chondral injuries, and in the red-red and red-white zones.

Evaluation of Midterm Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Arthroscopically Repaired Vertical Longitudinal and Bucket-Handle Lateral Meniscal Tears

Background:

Lateral meniscal tears in the stable knee are rare. There are few comparative studies evaluating functional and radiological outcomes of vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle lateral meniscal tears.

Purpose:

To evaluate the midterm clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopically repaired traumatic vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle lateral meniscal tears.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A total of 43 full-thickness lateral meniscal repairs, including 22 (51.2%) for vertical longitudinal tears and 21 (48.8%) for bucket-handle tears, were evaluated. A clinical assessment was performed according to the Barrett criteria, and patient outcomes were measured with the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, and overall satisfaction scale. Magnetic resonance imaging was used as the radiological re-examination method preoperatively and at final follow-up. A subgroup analysis examining isolated repair versus repair with concurrent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction was performed.

Results:

The mean follow-up period was 63.2 months (range, 24-86 months). Based on clinical and radiological outcomes, 38 of the 43 repairs (88.3%) were successful, and the remaining 5 (11.6%) cases were considered to be failures. Overall, the combined results for both groups demonstrated an improvement in the Lysholm score, Tegner score, and patient satisfaction. There was no significant difference in the postoperative Lysholm score (91.4 vs 87.0, respectively; P = .223), Tegner score (5.4 vs 5.5, respectively; P = .872), or patient satisfaction (7.2 vs 7.4, respectively; P = .624) between bucket-handle repair and vertical longitudinal repair. The subgroup analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome scores for isolated repair versus repair with concurrent ACL reconstruction. Smoking was identified as a risk factor for repair failure.

Conclusion:

Comparable clinical and radiological outcomes were obtained after vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle lateral meniscal repairs using the all-inside or hybrid suture technique with different suture configurations, regardless of whether ACL reconstruction was performed. Smoking was identified as a risk factor for failure.

Biomechanical Comparison of Vertical Mattress and Cross-stitch Suture Techniques and Single- and Double-Row Configurations for the Treatment of Bucket-Handle Medial Meniscal Tears

BACKGROUND

Given the variety of suturing techniques for bucket-handle meniscal repair, it is important to assess which suturing technique best restores native biomechanics.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

To biomechanically compare vertical mattress and cross-stitch suture techniques, in single- and double-row configurations, in their ability to restore native knee kinematics in a bucket-handle medial meniscal tear model. The hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the vertical mattress and cross-stitch double-row suture techniques but that the double-row technique would provide significantly improved biomechanical parameters versus the single-row technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Ten matched pairs of human cadaver knees were randomly assigned to the vertical mattress (n = 10) or cross-stitch (n = 10) repair group. Each knee underwent 4 consecutive testing conditions: (1) intact, (2) displaced bucket-handle tear, (3) single-row suture configuration on the femoral meniscus surface, and (4) double-row suture configuration (repair of femoral and tibial meniscus surfaces). Knees were loaded with a 1000-N axial compressive force at 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, and 120° of flexion for each condition. Resultant medial compartment contact area, average contact pressure, and peak contact pressure data were recorded.

RESULTS

Intact state contact area was not restored at 0° ( P = .027) for the vertical double-row configuration and at 0° ( P = .032), 60° ( P < .001), and 90° ( P = .007) of flexion for the cross-stitch double-row configuration. No significant differences were found in the average contact pressure and peak contact pressure between the intact state and the vertical mattress and cross-stitch repairs with single- and double-row configurations at any flexion angles. When the vertical and cross-stich repairs were compared across all flexion angles, no significant differences were observed in single-row configurations, but in double-row configurations, cross-stitch repair resulted in a significantly decreased contact area, average contact pressure, and peak contact pressure (all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Single- and double-row configurations of the vertical mattress and cross-stitch inside-out meniscal repair techniques restored native tibiofemoral pressure after a medial meniscal bucket-handle tear at all assessed knee flexion angles. Despite decreased contact area with a double-row configuration, mainly related to the cross-stitch repair, in comparison with the intact state, the cross-stitch double-row repair led to decreased pressure as compared with the vertical double-row repair. These findings are applicable only at the time of the surgery, as the biological effects of healing were not considered.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Medial meniscal bucket-handle tears may be repaired with the single- or double-row configuration of vertical mattress or cross-stitch sutures.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Meniscal Cyst After Meniscal Repair

PURPOSE

To investigate the incidence of magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed cyst formation after meniscal repair and to analyze associated risk factors.

METHODS

This retrospective study included cases repaired arthroscopically with the all-inside (AI) technique (using suture anchors) and/or the inside-out (IO) technique between October 2008 and December 2014. A meniscal cyst was detected on T2 fat-suppressed magnetic resonance images. All cases were divided into 3 groups according to the repair method (AI, IO, and combined technique). The incidence of radiographically confirmed meniscal cyst formation in each group and the associated risk factors (age, sex, AI device, medial meniscus, Tegner activity scale preinjury) were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 102 menisci in 96 knees were evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 3.8 (range, 2-8) years. The mean patient age was 21.0 (range, 6-53) years. Thirty cases were in the AI group, 60 in the IO group, and 12 in the combined group. Demographically, there were significant differences among groups regarding the number of medial, lateral, and discoid tears; concomitant anterior cruciate ligament tears; Tegner scale; and suture number. Meniscal cysts developed in 14 of 102 cases. Two of the 14 cysts were symptomatic, requiring open cystectomy. The incidence of meniscal cyst was significantly higher in the AI group (12 of 30, 40%) than in the IO group (1 of 60, 1.7%) or the combined-technique group (1 of 12, 8.3%) (P < .001). Both symptomatic cysts were in the AI group and were in continuity with the anchors. Medial meniscus tear (odds ratio = 6.92) and the use of AI suture anchors (odds ratio = 15.03) significantly increased the risk of cyst formation.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of meniscal cysts after arthroscopic meniscal repair was 1.7% to 40.0%, depending on the surgical method. Medial meniscus tears and use of an AI device are suggested as risk factors for cyst formation in this retrospective study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level Ⅲ, retrospective comparative study.

Editorial Commentary: Meniscal Tears or Meniscal Aging-That Is the Question

Meniscal tears constitute one of the most common pathologies in sports medicine. Although frequently grouped by shape, location, and size for didactic purposes, considering them according to their cause is probably the single most important factor to predict their behavior and prognosis. For instance, an acute traumatic tear and a degenerative tear of the meniscus are located on opposite ends of the spectrum of the meniscal pathology (which is comparable to focal chondral defects and osteoarthritis). For this reason, surgically addressing a non-obstructive degenerative meniscus does not always address the cause of the problem (inherent catabolic state) or the character of the symptoms (due to concomitant osteoarthritis or overload), and therefore, outcomes have been reported to be unpredictable. Of note, several recent randomized clinical trials allowed for a single-way crossover, which could act as a major confounder related to patient recruitment and expectation bias. Considering these thoughts along with the associated media coverage, there is a global trend to treat degenerative tears with a more conservative approach. Despite this, the most appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic degenerative tears for which a trial of conservative measures failed is yet to be determined.

Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Background:

There are limited data comparing the outcomes of all-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair techniques.

Purpose:

To assess failure rates and clinical outcomes after the surgical repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears utilizing either an all-inside or inside-out technique.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Patients with bucket-handle meniscal tears undergoing all-inside or inside-out repair at a single institution between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. A total of 28 mensici repaired utilizing second-generation all-inside suturing devices and 42 menisci repaired using an inside-out technique were eligible for inclusion. Rigorous propensity matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, tear laterality, rim width, and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resulting in a total of 40 patients equally distributed between the 2 repair techniques for comparison. Retear-free survival as well as preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and physical examination findings were subsequently analyzed.

Results:

Twenty patients who underwent all-inside repair (14 male; mean age, 23.7 ± 6.7 years) were successfully propensity matched to 20 patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair (15 male; mean age, 22.5 ± 7.6 years), with a mean retear-free follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 2.5-7.4 years). Four (20%) all-inside repairs and 4 (20%) inside-out repairs failed over the course of follow-up (P > .999), with a mean time to failure of 2.7 years (range, 1.3-4.4 years) and 5.0 years (range, 0.8-7.5 years), respectively (P = .25). Increasing patient age trended toward a decreased clinical retear rate, independent of the repair technique (hazard ratio, 0.86; P = .056). There were no significant differences in the Tegner scores, IKDC scores, or range of motion between the groups as a whole or when subcategorizing by age, sex, body mass index, tear complexity, rim width, isolated versus concomitant ACLR, or medial- versus lateral-sided repair. There were no complications in the all-inside group, while there was a 10% rate of minor complications in the inside-out group (P = .49).

Conclusion:

Overall, satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable at short-term to midterm follow-up with both inside-out and all-inside repair techniques of bucket-handle meniscal tears in rigorously matched patients with similar meniscal tear patterns.

Novel flat and wide meniscal repair material improves the ultimate load of knot breakage in a porcine trans-capsular meniscal repair model

Background

In the meniscal repair procedures, a high ultimate load capacity and low cyclic creep at the repair site are favorable and lead to good biological incorporation of the tear site after surgery. Previous biomechanical tensile tests of the meniscal sutures have identified the suture knot as the weakest point. We hypothesized that the strength of a suture knot depends on the suture shape, and therefore, we compared three differently shaped suture materials composed of the same material and quantity per length. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a novel flat and wide repair material (FWRM), which consists of braided multi-threads that are cross-sectionally flat and wide, improves the ultimate load of knot breakage in a biomechanical experiment using a porcine trans-capsular meniscal repair model.

Methods

Eighteen fresh-frozen porcine knees (n = 6 in each group) were used. A longitudinal tear in the middle segment of the medial meniscus was created and repaired with a trans-capsular inside-out method using the following suture materials: No. 2–0 braided polyester conventional suture, hollow suture, and FWRM. After the separation of the inner segment of the meniscus with leaving, the suture stability of the repaired menisci was biomechanically analyzed with a video camera system for widening after a cyclic load between 5 and 20 N was applied 300 times. Ultimate failure load and stiffness at 5 mm/ min were also analyzed.

Results

We found no significant difference in suture widening after cyclic load tests [conventional suture, mean 0.51 mm (S.D. 0.39 mm); hollow suture, mean 0.23 mm (S.D. 0.11 mm); and FWRM, mean 0.54 mm (S.D. 0.08 mm)]. The failure mode in all specimens was knot breakage. Compared with those of the other groups, the ultimate failure load of FWRM was statistically significantly higher in the load-to-failure tests (conventional suture, mean 58.8 N [S.D. 8.25 N]; hollow suture, mean 79.4 N [S.D. 10.2 N]; and FWRM, mean 97.4 N [S.D. 3.65 N]; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

FWRM improves the ultimate load of knot breakage without altering stability. This material may contribute to safe and stable meniscus repair.