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

Survey Results Concerning Current Trends in Meniscus Repair Indications and Preferences from Members of the Pediatric Research in Sports Medicine (PRiSM) Society

Meniscus repair has increased in frequency, especially among surgeons who focus on youth sports injuries. The aim of this study was to determine current trends in meniscus repair among a specific subset of meniscus repair surgeons. A cross-sectional survey utilizing several clinical vignettes was administered to orthopaedic surgeon members of the Pediatric Research in Sports Medicine (PRiSM) Society to investigate surgeon experience and training, number of meniscus repair procedures performed, and surgical and rehabilitation preferences. A statistical analysis of the responses was performed to determine associations between years in practice or type of fellowship training and the number of meniscus repair procedures performed, surgical indications, and rehabilitation preferences. The response rate to various questions ranged from 61.5 (59/96) to 63.5% (61/96). In all vignettes, a majority favored repair as well as some degree of weight-bearing and range-of-motion restrictions. Surgeons who had been in practice for 6 to 10 years performed significantly more meniscus repairs per year than those who had been in practice for greater than 20 years (p = 0.009) and those who had been in practice for 0 to 5 years (p = 0.05). Surgeons who had been in practice for greater than 20 years performed a significantly higher percentage of meniscectomies relative to meniscus repairs, compared with those in practice for 0 to 5 years (p = 0.002) or 6 to 10 years (p = 0.0003). When surgeons were grouped into those with less than 10 years of experience and those with greater than 10 years of experience, the former group performed a significantly higher number of meniscus repairs relative to meniscectomies than the latter group of surgeons (p < 0.0001). Less experienced surgeons are more likely to perform meniscus repair than meniscectomy, but all surgeons surveyed had a general preference for repair in all clinical vignettes. Repair technique preferences as well as rehabilitation protocols varied widely among surgeons.

Good mid- to long-term outcomes after meniscus bucket-handle tear repair: A comparative analysis with and without anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Purpose

To evaluate mid- to long-term clinical outcomes after arthroscopic bucket-handle meniscal tear (BHMT) repair and to assess the impact of concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Methods

A comparative retrospective case series with blinded outcome assessment was conducted. All consecutive patients treated with arthroscopic BHMT repair with or without concurrent ACLR between 2001 and 2021 were eligible for inclusion. Fifty-five patients with an average follow-up of 7.3 ± 3.4 years were included in the analysis. Outcome measures comprised post-operative IKDC Subjective Knee Form, Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale, KOOS, and visual analogue scale (VAS) for satisfaction. Additionally, failure and reoperation rates were assessed.

Results

The failure rate was 9%. Medial BHMT repair showed superior post-operative IKDC scores compared to lateral meniscus repair (p = 0.038). Concurrent ACLR did not demonstrate any impact on post-operative KOOS, IKDC, Tegner or patient satisfaction. The mean IKDC score at final follow-up across both groups was 80.4 ± 17.8. The mean Lysholm score was 86.9 ± 16.7. Mean KOOS scores were (i) symptoms: 83.6 ± 18.3, (ii) pain: 90.2 ± 14.4, (iii) activities of daily living: 93.6 ± 15.1, (iv) sports: 78.3 ± 26.0 and (v) quality of life: 70.5 ± 24.5. Mean patient satisfaction (VAS) was 7.9 ± 2.5. The mean Tegner score was 4.9 ± 1.9. A consistent positive correlation between the number of sutures used and post-operative outcome measures was observed but did not reach statistical significance for most items.

Conclusion

Arthroscopic BHMT repair achieved good clinical outcomes and an acceptable failure rate of 9% at a mean follow-up of 7 years, supporting the clinical value of meniscal repair, including large BHMTs. Concurrent ACLR showed no impact on clinical outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Level IV (retrospective case series).

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.

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.

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.

What Do Patients Encounter When Searching Online About Meniscal Surgery? An Analysis of Internet Trends

Background

Many patients use the internet to learn about their orthopaedic conditions and find answers to their common questions. However, the sources and quality of information available to patients regarding meniscal surgery have not been fully evaluated.

Purpose

To determine the most frequently searched questions associated with meniscal surgery based on question type and topic, as well as to assess the website source type and quality.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

The following search terms were entered into a web search (www.google.com) using a clean-install browser: "meniscal tear,""meniscus repair,""meniscectomy,""knee scope,""meniscus surgery," and "knee arthroscopy." The Rothwell classification system was used to categorize questions and sort them into 1 of 13 topics relevant to meniscal surgery. Websites were also categorized by source into groups. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria (medians and interquartile ranges [IQRs]) were used to measure website quality.

Results

A total of 337 unique questions associated with 234 websites were extracted and categorized. The most popular questions were "What is the fastest way to recover from meniscus surgery?" and "What happens if a meniscus tear is left untreated?" Academic websites were associated more commonly with diagnosis questions (41.9%, P < .01). Commercial websites were associated more commonly with cost (71.4%, P = .03) and management (47.6%, P = .02). Government websites addressed a higher proportion of questions regarding timeline of recovery (22.2%, P < .01). Websites associated with medical practices were associated more commonly with risks/complications (43.8%, P = .01) while websites associated with single surgeons were associated more commonly with pain (19.4%, P = .03). Commercial and academic websites had the highest median JAMA benchmark scores (4 [IQR, 3-4] and 3 [IQR, 2-4], respectively) while websites associated with a single surgeon or categorized as "other" had the lowest scores (1 [IQR 1-2] and 1 [IQR 1-1.5], respectively).

Conclusion

Our study found that the most common questions regarding meniscal surgery were associated with diagnosis of meniscal injury, followed by activities and restrictions after meniscal surgery. Academic websites were associated significantly with diagnosis questions. The highest quality websites were commercial and academic websites.

Continuous Vertical Inside-Out Versus Traditional Vertical Inside-Out Meniscal Repair: A Biomechanical Comparison

Background

Biomechanical assessment of meniscal repairs is essential for evaluating different meniscal suturing methods and techniques. The continuous meniscal suture technique is a newer method of meniscal repair that may have biomechanical differences compared with traditional techniques.

Purpose

To evaluate the displacement, stiffness after cyclical loading, and load to failure for a continuous vertical inside-out meniscal suture versus a traditional vertical inside-out meniscal suture in a porcine medial meniscus.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

A total of 28 porcine knees were acquired and divided into 2 test groups of 14 medial meniscus each. A 2.0-cm longitudinal red-white zone cut was made in the body of the medial meniscus for each knee. The continuous suture (CS) group received 4 vertical stitches performed with a continuous vertical meniscal suture technique, and the inside-out suture (IO) group received a traditional vertical suture with 4 stitches. Two traction tapes were passed between the sutures and positioned in the biomechanical testing fixture device. Each specimen underwent load-to-failure testing at 5 mm/s, and displacement, system stiffness, and maximum load to failure were compared between the groups.

Results

The displacement after the cyclic test was 0.53 ± 0.12 and 0.48 ± 0.07 mm for the CS and IO groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups (P = .2792). The stiffness at the ultimate load testing was 36.3 ± 1.9 and 35.3 ± 2.4 N/mm for groups CS and IO, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups (P = .2557). In the load-to-failure test, the ultimate load was 218.2 ± 63.9 and 238.3 ± 71.3 N in the CS and IO groups, respectively, with no significant group differences (P = .3062).

Conclusion

A continuous vertical meniscal suture created a configuration for treating longitudinal meniscal lesions that was beneficial and biomechanically similar to a traditional vertical suture technique.

Clinical Relevance

The study findings indicate that use of the continuous vertical inside-out meniscal suture technique is a possible therapeutic option.

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

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

Arthroscopic all-inside repair of challenging meniscus tears

Meniscus tears are prevalent in isolation and in combination with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Meniscus lesions can be difficult to access and often display complex tear patterns, which result in technical challenges for the operating surgeon during surgical treatment. The aim of this video article is to demonstrate technical tips and tricks for performing all-inside repair of challenging meniscus tears. The presented techniques are indicated in young, physically active patients with symptomatic tears of the lateral and medial menisci, with or without concomitant ACL injury. The procedure is performed using standard anterolateral and anteromedial arthroscopic portals for direct visualization of complex meniscus tear patterns and all-inside instrument access. A suture passing device is used for the placement of suture loops for meniscus root repair. All-inside repair devices are used to repair the radial meniscal tears along the native circumferential fibers using a horizontal mattress suture configuration, with curved devices to achieve optimal access to challenging tears affecting the anterior and posterior aspects at the mid-body of the meniscus. Repair of radial tears at the avascular zone of the meniscus may be augmented with an autologous fibrin clot delivered using an arthroscopic cannula.

Previous Isolated Medial Bucket-Handle Meniscus Repair Significantly Increases Risk of Subsequent Ipsilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

(1) To define the incidence of surgically treated isolated bucket-handle meniscus tears (BHMTs); (2) to investigate risk of subsequent ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients who underwent previous isolated bucket handle (BH) meniscus repair; and (3) to investigate the risk of subsequent ACLR for various types of surgically treated meniscal tears.

Methods

A retrospective review of a national database was conducted to identify patients, aged 10 to 40 years, who underwent primary isolated BH meniscus surgery from 2015 to 2020. Patients were stratified by operative method. A control group of 500,000 age-matched patients was randomly selected to establish a benchmark rate of ACLR. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare the timing and incidence of subsequent ipsilateral ACLR after primary isolated BH meniscus surgery to the control group within 2 and 5 years.

Results

In total, 1,767 patients with isolated BHMTs treated with surgery were identified and met inclusion criteria. The incidence of isolated BHMTs among all surgically treated (repair or meniscectomy) meniscal injuries was 1.67%. Isolated BH repairs had significantly greater odds of ACLR within 5 years compared to the control group (odds ratio [OR] 6.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.86-12.99; P < .001). Medial BH repairs had the greatest odds of ACLR within 5 years (OR 9.15; 95% CI 4.27-19.57; P < .001). Lateral BH repair was not associated with subsequent ipsilateral ACLR within 5 years (OR 2.63; CI 0.37-18.90; P = .340).

Conclusions

Isolated BHMTs comprised 1.67% of all surgically treated meniscal injuries. Patients who underwent prior surgery for isolated BHMT were at increased risk of undergoing subsequent ipsilateral ACLR compared with the general population. Isolated medial BHMTs treated with repair had the highest risk for subsequent ACLR.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

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.

Smaller Iatrogenic Defects Created by Inside-Out Compared With All-Inside Meniscus Repair Devices in Human Cadaveric Model

PURPOSE

(1) To investigate the pattern and diameter of the iatrogenic defect that meniscal repair devices impose on meniscal tissue and (2) to determine whether repair-induced defect patterns or diameters differ across devices.

METHODS

Sixty-one fresh frozen human cadaveric menisci were used (n = 9; eliminated). All-inside devices (n = 9) included ULTRA FAST-FIX, FAST-FIX 360, Depuy Mitek 0° and 12° TRUESPAN, ConMed Sequent, Zimmer Biomet JuggerStitch, Stryker IvyAIR, Arthrex FiberStitch and Meniscal Cinch II. Inside-out needles (n = 4) included ConMed HiFi, Depuy Mitek ORTHOCORD, Arthrex-2-0 FiberWire, and Stryker SharpShooter. Following India Ink staining, implant devices were inserted into cadaveric menisci. Samples were fixed in formalin solution and imaged with a high-resolution camera. Defects were classified by qualitative evaluation. Defect and needle diameter were quantified with software assistance. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance testing.

RESULTS

We analyzed 644 iatrogenic defects with mean defect diameter of 1.96 mm (standard deviation 0.86). For all-inside devices, defect patterns (n = 436) were 15.6% linear, 38.1% semilunar, 46.3% stellate, while inside-out devices (n = 208) were 95.7% stellate, 4.3% linear, and 0.0% semilunar. All-inside devices had mean defect diameter of 2.46 mm, while inside-out meniscus needles had mean 0.90 mm defect diameter (P < .001). FasT-FIX 360, ULTRA-FAST-FIX, and Arthrex Meniscal Cinch II induced smaller diameter defects than other all-inside devices (F = 20.2, P < .05). Strong positive correlation was found comparing outer needle diameter and mean defect diameters across all devices (R² = 0.9447).

CONCLUSIONS

Needles utilized in meniscal implant systems produce the following basic defect patterns: stellate (62.3%), semilunar (25.8%), and linear (11.9%). A strong positive correlation was found between mean defect size and outer needle diameter across all devices. Inside-out double-armed flexible needles produced significantly smaller defects than all-inside devices. Of the all-inside devices, ULTRA FAST-FIX, FAST-FIX 360, and Arthrex Meniscal Cinch II produced smaller defects on average.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

While the true clinical impact of these findings cannot be drawn from the present study, this investigation provides necessary context to better understand reported similarities and differences in healing rates and outcomes between inside-out and all-inside repair techniques.

Primary Fixation and Cyclic Performance of Single-Stitch All-Inside and Inside-Out Meniscal Devices for Repairing Vertical Longitudinal Meniscal Tears

BACKGROUND

Primary device fixation and the resistance against gap formation during repetitive loading influence the quality of meniscal repair. There are limited biomechanical data comparing primary tensioning and cyclic behavior of all-inside versus inside-out repair.

HYPOTHESIS

All-inside devices provide higher initial load on the meniscal repair than inside-out fixation, and stiffer constructs show higher resistance against gap formation during cyclic loading.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

In total, 60 longitudinal bucket-handle tears in human cadaveric menisci were created and repaired with a single stitch and randomly assigned to 4 all-inside groups (TrueSpan, FastFix 360, Stryker AIR, FiberStich) and 2 inside-out groups (suture repair [IO-S], suture tape [IO-ST]). Residual load after repair tensioning (50 N) and relief displacement were measured. Constructs underwent cyclic loading between 2 and 20 N over 500 cycles (0.75 Hz) with cyclic stiffness, gap formation, and final peak elongation measured. Ultimate load and stiffness were analyzed during pull to failure (3.15 mm/s).

RESULTS

All-inside repair demonstrated significantly higher primary fixation strength than inside-out repair. The significantly highest load (mean ± SD; 20.1 ± 0.9 N; P < .037) and relief displacement (-2.40 ± 0.32 mm; P < .03) were for the knotless soft anchoring FiberStich group. The lowest initial load (9.0 ± 1.5 N; P < .001) and relief displacement (-1.39 ± 0.26 mm; P < .045) were for the IO-S repair group. The final gap formation (500th cycle) of FiberStich (0.75 ± 0.37 mm; P < .02) was significantly smaller than others and that of the IO-S (1.47 ± 0.33 mm; P < .045) significantly larger. The construct stiffness of the FiberStich and IO-ST groups was significantly greater at the end of cyclic testing (16.7 ± 0.80 and 15.5 ± 1.42 N/mm; P < .042, respectively) and ultimate failure testing (23.4 ± 3.6 and 20.6 ± 2.3 N/mm; P < .005). The FastFix 360 (86.4 ± 4.8 N) and Stryker AIR (84.4 ± 4.6 N) groups failed at a significantly lower load than the IO-S group (P < .02) with loss of anchor support. The FiberStich (146.8 ± 23.4 N), TrueSpan (142.0 ± 17.8 N), and IO-ST (139.4 ± 7.3 N) groups failed at significantly higher loads (P < .02) due to suture tearing.

CONCLUSION

Overall, primary fixation strength of inside-out meniscal repair was significantly lower than all-inside repair in this cadaveric tissue model. Although absolute differences among groups were small, meniscal repairs with higher construct stiffness (IO-ST, FiberStich) demonstrated increased resistance against gap formation and failure load.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Knotless single-stitch all-inside meniscal repair with a soft anchor resulted in less gapping, but the overall clinical significance on healing rates remains unclear.

Long-term follow-up of bucket-handle meniscal repairs: chondroprotective effect outweighs high failure risk

PURPOSE

Outcomes after repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears tend to be satisfying in the short-term follow-up. However, the literature is scarce regarding long-term data following repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears. The aim of this study was to assess long-term follow-up outcomes, focusing on knee osteoarthritis (OA) development and failure rate, and determine risk factors associated with failure.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study, including all patients with bucket-handle tears within 4 mm of the menisco-synovial junction, who underwent meniscal repair, either isolated or combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) between 2004 and 2015. A combination of all-inside, outside-in, and inside-out repair technique was used in all patients. Patients over 40 years old, concomitant multi-ligamentous injuries, and severe cartilage lesions documented intraoperatively were excluded. During the follow-up, a meniscus was considered healed using Barrett's criteria, while knee OA evaluation was performed according to Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification using standing knee radiographs. Patients were assessed preoperatively as well as postoperatively in terms of knee function using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

RESULTS

In total, the inclusion criteria were met by 66 patients. Median age at the time of operation was 21.9 years (13-39). Median follow-up was 114 (62-176) months. Total failure rate was approximately 33% at median time of 19 (6-39) months. Osteoarthritis was statistically significantly more prevalent in patients with failed repairs (mean KL score: 2.09) in comparison to patients with successful repairs (mean KL score: 0.54) p = 0.001. In addition, successful repairs were associated with higher KOOS score as compared with failed repairs (mean ± SD, 89.6 ± 4.6 vs 77.8 ± 4.9 p < 0.001), higher IKDC score (mean ± SD, 88.2 ± 5.1 vs 79.2 ± 5.2 p < 0.001), and Lysholm score (mean ± SD, 90.3 ± 5.3 vs 78.4 ± 7.8 p < 0.001). Patients with medial meniscus repair had 4.8 higher relative likelihood of failure compared to lateral meniscus [p = 0 .014, OR = 4.8 (95% Cl 1.2, 18.6)]. Patients over 16 years old had 5.7 higher relative likelihood of failure [p = 0 .016, OR = 5.7 (95% Cl 0.04, 0.85)]. Concurrent ACLR did not have a significant effect on the postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A high rate of clinical failure was observed after meniscal repair of bucket-handle tears. However, successful treatment led to lower rates of knee OA development and better knee function, approximately 10 years postoperatively. Meniscal repair of bucket-handle tears is recommended to improve knee function and prevent knee OA in young patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

All-Inside Meniscus Repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The indications for partial meniscectomy are becoming increasingly limited, and recent evidence suggests that the meniscus should be preserved whenever possible. Because of its many proposed advantages, all-inside meniscus repairs are becoming increasingly common. This review discusses the indications, advantages, disadvantages, and biomechanical and clinical outcomes of all-inside meniscus repair.

RECENT FINDINGS

All-inside meniscus repair demonstrates equal functional outcomes, healing rates, and complications compared to inside-out repair of vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle tears with the advantages of decreased surgical time and faster post-operative recovery. In addition, return-to-sport and activity levels are high following all-inside repair regardless of whether concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is performed. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated advantages of all-inside meniscal based repairs on radial and horizontal tears. All-inside meniscus repair compares favorably to inside-out repair of vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle tears and continues to increase in popularity. Both capsular based and meniscal based repairs can be used to repair a variety of tear patterns. While biomechanical results are encouraging, further research on the clinical outcomes of meniscal based repairs is needed to elucidate the role of these techniques in the future.

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.

Inside-Out Approach to Meniscus Repair: Still the Gold Standard?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an up-to-date summary on the current literature and trends regarding use of the inside-out approach to meniscus repair. Additionally, the paper describes the authors preferred techniques for inside-out meniscus repair utilizing posteromedial and posterolateral exposures.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a substantial increase in recent publications regarding meniscus repair. However, comparisons regarding the optimal repair technique have not been conclusive. Despite the recent increase in use of all-inside devices, multiple investigations with short-to-mid-term follow-up have demonstrated similar rates of meniscus healing between inside-out and all-inside repair techniques. Similarly, current literature describes comparable failure rates of around 20%. There are variations in the profile of complications, with all-inside devices having more implant-related complications and inside-out techniques with higher neurovascular injuries. Inside-out meniscus repair is a versatile, cost-effective technique that remains the gold standard for management of most meniscus tear patterns. Through a thoughtful approach, efficient suture retrieval and repair can be performed while protecting critical neurovascular structures. All-inside meniscus repair devices have increased in popularity and surgeon access, but this technique is not without limitations and comparisons to inside-out meniscus repair demonstrates equivocal outcomes.

Return-to-Sport Rate and Activity Level Are High Following Arthroscopic All-Inside Meniscal Repair With and Without Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature of return-to-sport outcomes following all-inside meniscus repair and evaluate whether concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) influenced these outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Systematic Reviews databases was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two reviewers examined all literature pertaining to sport outcomes following all-inside meniscal repair. Studies were included if they had a 12-month minimum follow-up and reported return to sport rate, Tegner, or Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Sport outcomes. Studies with meniscal repair techniques other than the all-inside technique were excluded. Studies were not excluded if they contained patients receiving concomitant ACLR. Study quality was evaluated with the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies comprising 872 patients were included in this investigation. The weighted average patient age was 28.7 (range 14.1-42.1) years, and the weighted average follow-up was 56.0 (range 18.0-155.0) months. The mean Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies score was 14.4 ± 3.7. Ten investigations reported both preoperative (range 2.3-3.5) and postoperative (range 4.0-7.3) Tegner outcomes, with scores at final follow-up greater in each of the 10 reporting investigations. KOOS Sport outcomes were examined in 5 investigations, with scores at follow-up ranging from 63.6 to 91. Three studies reported a return to sport rate ranging from 89.6 to 90% at follow-up. Four investigations compared sport-related outcomes between isolated meniscal repair and meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR. Two such studies reported no difference between the 2 cohorts, 1 favored the isolated cohort, and 1 favored the combined cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found a 90% return-to-sport rate and high postoperative activity level following all-inside meniscal repair, as assessed by KOOS Sport and Tegner activity scales. Further, concurrent ACLR did not significantly affect these outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review of level I-IV studies.

An Approach to Chronic and Displaced Bucket Handle Meniscal Tear-Assessment, Repair (Push-and-Pull Technique), or Salvage

Meniscal repairs are preferred to meniscectomies to preserve meniscal function and mitigate the risk of degeneration. However, repair of a chronic and displaced bucket handle tear of the meniscus can be technically challenging. We introduce a systematic method for assessment, reduction, repair, or salvage in this situation with an aim of reducing operating time and improving the chance of a favorable outcome. This technique describes repair of a bucket handle tear on the medial meniscus with displacement into the intercondylar notch. An arthroscopic probe is used for reduction and suture tension (push-and-pull technique) when using an all-inside suture device (FAST-FIX 360 repair system; Smith & Nephew) on the middle and posterior part of the tear. The anterior part of the tear is repaired with an outside-in method. If reduction is not possible, then a salvage reduction and hybrid repair is carried out instead. Postoperatively, patients will be nonweight-bearing on the operated limb, and range of motion restricted from 0 to 90° for 6 weeks, with the aim of resuming running by 6 months.

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.

The future of meniscus science: international expert consensus

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the main focus areas for research and development for furthering the state of meniscus science in 2021.

Methods

An electronic survey including 10 questions was sent in a blind fashion to the faculty members of the 5^th International Conference on Meniscus Science and Surgery. These faculty served as an expert consensus on the future of research and development areas of meniscus science. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ranking weighted averages were calculated to score survey questions.

Results

Of the 82 faculty, 76 (93%) from 18 different countries completed the survey (84% male, 16% female). The highest ranked future research and development focus areas were meniscus repair, biologics, osteotomy procedures, addressing meniscus extrusion, and the development of new therapies for the prevention of posttraumatic osteoarthritis. Currently, the most ‘valuable’ type of biologic reported for meniscus treatment was platelet-rich plasma. The main reported global research limitation was a lack of long-term clinical outcomes data. The most promising emerging medical technologies for improving meniscus science were 3-D printing, personalized medicine, and artificial implants.

Conclusions

This survey suggests that the future of meniscus science should be focused on meniscal preservation techniques through meniscus repair, addressing meniscal extrusion, and the use of orthobiologics. The lack of long-term clinical outcomes was the main reported research limitation globally for meniscus treatment. Future product development utilizing emerging medical technologies suggest the use of 3-D printing for meniscal transplants/scaffolds, personalized treatment, and bioengineering for artificial implants.

Level of Evidence

Level V.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40634-021-00345-y.

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.

Inside-out Medial Meniscal Repair: Improved Surgical Exposure With a Sub-semimembranosus Approach

Inside-out meniscal repair is considered the gold standard for reparable tears of the medial and lateral menisci despite the recent popularity of all-inside devices. Accurate suture passage is required to perform a stable repair as well as to prevent inadvertent neurovascular injury from the suture needles. Placement of a deep soft-tissue retractor is necessary to identify and retrieve these needles prior to tying the sutures. Several authors have recommended placement of this retractor in the interval anterior to the gastrocnemius muscle belly and above the semimembranosus tendon. However, we have noted that the needles often pass distal to the retractor when it is placed in this interval owing to the reorientation of the joint line that occurs with the knee in a relatively extended position during suture placement. We describe a modified technique in which the retractor is placed inferior to the semimembranosus, which puts it directly in line with the needles' trajectory. This modification makes inside-out medial meniscal repair safer and more efficient.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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 outcome and failure analysis of medial meniscus bucket-handle tear repair: a series of 96 patients with a minimum 2 year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The failure rate of meniscal repair remains significant, especially for bucket-handle tears. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes, failure rate and risk factors for failure of bucket-handle medial meniscal tear repairs performed during ACL reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed on a consecutive series of 96 ACL reconstructions with meniscal arthroscopic suture of a bucket-handle tear of the medial meniscus with a minimum 2 year follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation at last follow-up included objective IKDC rating, instrumented differential laxity and Tegner activity level. Functional outcome was evaluated with Lysholm score at last follow-up. Failure rate, survival curves and risk factor analysis using Cox proportional hazard ratio models were performed to analyze suture repair failure.

RESULTS

At IKDC rating, all patients were C or D preoperatively, whereas they where all A or B at last follow-up. Instrumented differential laxity improved from 6.77 mm (1.57) to 1.02 mm (1.15) mm at last follow-up (p = 1.9 E^-18). The mean Tegner score before injury was 6.79 (± 1.47) and 6.11 (± 1.75) at last follow-up (p = 0.0011). Mean Lyholm score at last follow-up was 91.53 (± 11.6). The average entire cohort failure rate was 19% at final follow-up of 35.2 ± 9.8 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated that the probability of the absence of failure decreased constantly over time. No significant difference in the objective IKDC, Lysholm or Tegner scores was observed between the failure group and the success group. Multivariate analysis revealed that younger patients and a procedure of ACL revision are more at risk for suture repair failure. In the majority of cases, the meniscal lesion observed at revision was equivalent or less extensive than the initial lesion.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that failure rate remains high for medial meniscus bucket-handle tears, suture repair of bucket-handle tears should be encouraged taking into account the long-term consequences of menisectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Vertical Continuous Meniscal Suture Technique

Meniscal injuries are common in the population, representing the major cause of functional impairment in the knee. Vertical longitudinal injuries of the meniscus can be stable or unstable. When extensive, they are commonly unstable and can lead to clinical signs of significant functional disability. Vertical longitudinal injuries have the best prognosis for repair, especially when occurring in the meniscal periphery, called the red-red zone. A recently developed type of meniscal suture device called Meniscus 4 A-II enables the surgeon to perform a meniscal suture from the inside-out continuously, reducing surgical time. Because it allows the surgeon to use a single and inexpensive device to repair the entire injury, costs are significantly reduced. Here, an approach to carry out continuous meniscal repair with vertical sutures is described. This technique warrants excellent stability to the meniscal repair, increasing the chances of a successful outcome. We believe that the popularization of the repair technique from the inside out using the Meniscus 4-All device will help many surgeons around the world save menisci that otherwise would have a great chance of being excised, since it is a cheap, reproducible, and easy-to-handle device.

The relationship between ACL reconstruction and meniscal repair: quality of life, sports return, and meniscal failure rate-2- to 12-year follow-up

Background

Few studies have approached in a long-term follow-up of meniscal repair at an amateur level, specially studying variables as a quality of life and failure rate. The purpose of this review is to study medium to long-term clinical results in patients at amateur sports patients, that have required meniscal sutures at our center, with or without ACL reconstruction. We evaluate the objective function of the knee, as well as patients’ return to sports activities, quality of life, and the rate of failed repair and study of the possible reasons.

Methods

This was an observational retrospective study. Ninety-two patients who regularly perform amateur sports activities (Tegner 4 to 7) were assessed, with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years, divided into 2 groups: group 1, isolated meniscal suture (43 cases) and group 2, associated to ACL reconstruction (49 cases). Each patient made this test in 2019: Lysholm and Tegner (validated for Spanish) before a knee injury and after surgery, motivation to return to sports activity (Likert scale with 3 items: low, regular, or high), and quality of life through SD-12 test.

Results

High return to amateur sports rate (92%) was even higher in the isolated meniscal repair group in comparison to the group with associated ACL. We have not found statistically significant differences between sports return and age, gender, injured meniscus, chondral injuries, preoperative Tegner score, or motivation. No significant differences in physical or mental health fields between both groups. Meniscal repair failed in 12 patients (13%). Higher rate of failure in isolated bucket-handle tear injuries (p < 0.0062). No statistically significant association was found between the other variables studied.

Conclusions

Good results with 92% of sports return, low rate of complications, and low retear rate, even lower when is associated with ACL reconstruction and in external meniscus repair, and high values at SF-12 between 2 groups.

The modified cross-suture technique for unilateral pulled-out anchor during all-inside meniscal repair

Background

Meniscal repair has received increasing attention, but for inexperienced doctors, unilateral suture anchor pulling out may occur during all-inside meniscal repair, and the treatment outcome may be affected. When the errors happened intraoperatively, how to minimize the loss under guaranteeing of treatment effectiveness is a topic worth studying.

Purpose

To explore the practicability and effectiveness of the modified cross-suture method for arthroscopic remediation of unilateral suture anchor pulling out of an all-inside meniscal repair system.

Methods

From May 2014 to May 2017, 28 patients diagnosed with injuries of the meniscus and anterior cruciate ligaments (ACL) from the First Department of Orthopaedics of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University were enrolled in the study as the observation group, including 18 males and 10 females with an average age of 25.5 ± 2.3 years (range 18–42 years). All patients underwent ACL reconstruction concurrently. All meniscus injuries were repaired with an all-inside meniscal repair technique, and 1–3 needles of unilateral suture anchor pulling out occurred intraoperatively. The modified cross-suture method was used to remedy the error of anchor pulling out and to eventually complete an effective repair. Another 30 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction and all-inside meniscal concurrently without unilateral suture anchor pulling out, including 20 males and 10 females with an average age of 26.3 ± 1.9 years (range 19–45 years), were enrolled as the control group. During postoperative follow-up, range of motion, Lachman test and pivot shift test were performed during the physical examination. The clinical healing of the meniscus was evaluated according to the Barrett standard. The meniscus healing status was also confirmed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The function of the knee joint was evaluated according to the IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores.

Results

Twenty-five patients in the observation group and 28 patients in the control group completed the follow-up, with an average follow-up of 18.4 ± 5.2 months. All operations were performed by the same surgeon. At the follow-up 1 year after the operation, the average knee ROM of the two groups was 125.2 ± 4.3 degrees and 124.7 ± 3.8 degrees, the clinical healing rate of the meniscus of the two groups was 92.0% (23/25) and 92.9% (26/28), the MRI healing rate of the menniscus of the two groups was 72.0% (18/25) and 71.4% (20/28), and the IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores of the two groups were 90.52 ± 2.8, 89.17 ± 3.1, and 6.81 ± 1.7 and 91.42 ± 1.9, 90.32 ± 3.4, and 7.02 ± 1.4, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The modified cross-suture method is practicable and effective for arthroscopic remediation of unilateral suture anchor pulling out in an all-inside meniscal repair system.

Continuous Meniscal Suture Technique of the Knee

The menisci are fibroelastic structures interposed between the articular surfaces of the femur and tibia. They absorb impact and transmit load. Meniscal injury may compromise function and cause rapid joint degeneration, leading to the development of secondary osteoarthritis. Surgical treatment of meniscal injury is usually performed by arthroscopy, and meniscectomy or meniscal suture may be associated with such treatment. Meniscal suture should be considered when the injury compromises the proper functioning of the meniscus to recover its anatomy and function. Different meniscal suture techniques exist; the most widely used are the inside-out, outside-in, and all-inside techniques. The gold-standard repair technique is the inside-out technique. A drawback of this technique is the need to alternate between intra- and extra-articular structures for every stitch, which makes it even more laborious. We describe the continuous meniscal suture technique, also called "meniscal stitching," for a medial meniscal bucket-handle injury. This technique is performed from the inside out and allows the surgeon to perform multiple stitches with the same thread quickly and effectively. This surgical technique is performed using a single meniscal suture device that was developed by our group, called the "Meniscus 4 A-II" device.

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

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