A Comparison of All-inside and Inside-out Meniscal Repair in Elite Athletes

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.

Meniscus Tears in Elite Athletes: Treatment Considerations, Clinical Outcomes, and Return to Play

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of meniscal injuries in the elite athlete is a difficult problem secondary to the high demands of athletic competition, the need for a timely return to sport, and the desire to maximize performance over time. The purpose of this review is to provide an up-to-date summary on the current literature and trends regarding the management of meniscus injuries with a special consideration for elite athletes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Historically, partial meniscectomy has been the primary treatment option for meniscus injuries. However, in recent years there has been an increased emphasis on meniscus preservation due to the increased risk of cartilage degeneration over time. Moreover, while partial meniscectomy still provides a quicker return to sport (RTS), recent literature has demonstrated similar rates of RTS and return to pre-injury levels between partial meniscectomy and meniscus repair. In the setting of symptomatic meniscal deficiency, meniscus allograft transplantation has become an increasingly utilized salvage procedure with promising yet variable outcomes on the ability to withstand elite competition. Currently, there is no uniform approach to treating meniscal injuries in elite athletes. Therefore, an individualized approach is required with consideration of the meniscus tear type, location, concomitant injuries, athlete expectations, rehabilitation timeline, and desire to prevent or delay knee osteoarthritis. In athletes with anatomically repairable tears, meniscus repair should be performed given the ability to restore native anatomy, provide high rates of RTS, and mitigate long-term chondral damage. However, partial meniscectomy can be indicated for unrepairable tears.

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.

Comparing Surgical Techniques for Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review of Radiographic and Functional Outcomes

Meniscal tears are a common orthopedic injury. The management approaches for meniscal tears include both surgical and non-surgical procedures; however, the majority of the surgeons opt for various surgical interventions. This systematic review aimed to compare the outcomes of different surgical techniques for meniscal tears. The systemic search was carried out in various databases including PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus. Studies that investigated surgical techniques for meniscal repair and published between 2010 to 2023 were included. Out of the 7,421 potential studies identified from databases and Google Scholar search, only 17 studies were included in our systemic review. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 weeks to 123 months. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, including joint line tenderness, swelling, and loss of flexion, while others reported no significant adverse events. Pull-out repair and refixation techniques demonstrated better clinical outcomes and slower arthritic progression than partial meniscectomy. Mason-Allen stitches and simple stitches yielded comparable results, and both inside-out and all-inside techniques had similar clinical and functional outcomes. This systematic review provides valuable insights into the outcomes of different surgical techniques for meniscal tears. Further studies with longer follow-up periods may help assess the long-term effectiveness of these surgical techniques.