Outcome of All-Inside Second-Generation Meniscal Repair: Minimum Five-Year Follow-up

Treatment of chronic and complex meniscal tears with arthroscopic meniscus repair augmented with collagen matrix wrapping: failure rate and functional outcomes

PURPOSE

Meniscal wrapping is a fully arthroscopic technique that involves enhanced meniscal repair with a tissue-engineered collagen matrix wrapping. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of using the meniscal wrapping technique for the treatment of chronic or complex meniscal tears. The primary objective is to assess its failure rate. The secondary objectives are to analyse complication rate, functional outcomes and overall patient satisfaction.

METHODS

This retrospective case series study included patients who sustained chronic and complex tears undergoing meniscal wrapping with autologous liquid bone marrow injection. Failure rate was considered if the patient underwent partial or complete meniscectomy or knee replacement during the follow-up, while other unexpected knee reoperations were considered as complications. Clinical outcomes were evaluated through the IKDC score, Tegner Activity Score and Short Assessment of Patient Satisfaction.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were included (15 non-acute bucket-handle tears, three non-acute horizontal tears and three non-acute complex injuries). The failure rate was 9.5% at 33 months. The rate of other unplanned reoperations was 14.3%, but none of these complications were apparently directly related to the wrapping technique. The average postoperative IKDC was 73.3/100. No statistically significant difference was encountered between preinjury and postoperative Tegner Activity Score. The mean overall patient satisfaction was 88.3/100.

CONCLUSIONS

Meniscal wrapping can be safely used as an adjunctive technique to meniscal repair in such difficult-to-treat cases to preserve the meniscus. The technique achieves a low failure rate and promising results of knee function, and patient satisfaction.

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.

Rates of subsequent surgeries after meniscus repair with and without concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of secondary knee surgery for patients undergoing meniscus repair with or without concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLr).

METHODS

Utilizing a large national database, patients with meniscal repair with or without concurrent arthroscopic ACLr were identified. The two cohorts were then queried for secondary surgical procedures of the knee within the following 2 years. Frequency, age distribution, rates of secondary surgery, and type of secondary procedures performed were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 1,585 patients were identified: meniscus repair with ACLr was performed for 1,006 (63.5%) and isolated meniscal repair was performed for 579 (36.5%). Minimum of two year follow up was present for 487 (30.7% of the overall study population). Secondary surgery rates were not significantly different between meniscus repair with concurrent ACLr and isolated meniscus repairs with an overall mean follow up of 13 years (1.5-24 years) (10.6% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.126). For the 2 year follow up cohort, secondary surgery rates were not significantly different (19.3% vs. 25.6%, p = 0.1098). There were no differences in survivorship patterns between the two procedures, both in the larger cohort (p = 0.2016), and the cohort with minimum 2-year follow-up (p = 0.0586).

CONCLUSION

The current study assessed secondary surgery rates in patients undergoing meniscus repair with or without concurrent ACLr in a large patient database. Based on this data, no significant difference in rates of secondary knee surgery was identified.

Clinical and MRI Outcomes of Repaired Peripheral Longitudinal Tears of the Posterior Horn of the Medial Meniscus With ACL Reconstruction: Results According to Tear Size

Background

Arthroscopic repair of longitudinal tears in the medial meniscal posterior horn (MMPH) has been reported to result in high rates of meniscal healing when performed alongside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, studies that have focused on longitudinal tears and their impact on clinical outcomes after arthroscopic repair are insufficient.

Purpose

To investigate the clinical outcome and healing status after concomitant arthroscopic ACLR and repair of MMPH peripheral longitudinal tears, with respect to the tear length.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 263 patients who underwent concurrent arthroscopic suture repair of longitudinal tears of the MMPH and ACLR were enrolled. All patients had 2-year postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluations, and 61% of patients underwent a second-look arthroscopy. The exclusion criteria were partial meniscectomies and multiligament injuries. Patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively for clinical scores, amount of anterior translation, grade of pivot shift, and presence of meniscal tear extension. According to the length of longitudinal tears, patients were classified into 2 groups: (1) patients with tears that were located in the posterior compartment and (2) patients with tears that extended to the midbody of the meniscus. Binary stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk factors for unhealed menisci as identified by MRI.

Results

A total of 83 patients were included in this study-52 patients (group 1) had MMPH tears without tear extension and 31 patients (group 2) had MMPH tears with tear extension. There were no differences in outcomes between the groups, including the healing rate after meniscal repair (P > .05). Based on postoperative MRI scans, 67 patients (80.7%) were categorized as completely healed and 16 patients (19.3%) as unhealed. There were no significant differences between the completely healed and unhealed groups in outcomes or the rate of preoperative midbody tear extension. Higher body mass index and lower preoperative Lysholm scores were identified as risk factors for unhealed menisci.

Conclusion

Overall, the rate of complete healing of MMPH tears repaired concomitantly with ACLR was 80.7% (67/83), and midbody tear extension did not affect the healing rate of the repaired meniscus. Results indicate that suture repair for unstable MMPH tears should be considered regardless of tear size.

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 Meniscus Repair Using an All-Inside, All-Suture, Knotless Device

With an increased appreciation of the importance an intact meniscus has on normal knee kinematics and function, more meniscal tears are being treated with a repair rather than partial meniscectomy. There are several techniques for repairing torn meniscal tissue, including the outside-in, inside-out, and all-inside repairs. Each technique comes with its advantages and drawbacks. The inside-out and outside-in techniques allow for greater control of the repair using knots outside the joint capsule; however, they pose a risk for neurovascular injury and require additional incisions. Arthroscopic all-inside repairs have seen increasing popularity, but with current techniques, fixation is achieved either with intra-articular knots or extra-articular implants, leading to variable outcomes and the potential for postoperative complications. This technical note describes the use of SuperBall, an all-inside meniscus repair device that provides an all-arthroscopic approach, no intraarticular knots or implants, and surgeon-guided tensioning of the meniscus repair.

Patients with discoid menisci have similar clinical outcomes to those without discoid menisci when undergoing surgical intervention: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To compare post-operative clinical outcomes of discoid meniscus tear procedures such as saucerization with or without repair with those of non-discoid meniscus tears such as meniscectomy or repair in skeletally mature patients with no concomitant injuries.

METHODS

Three databases MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 3rd, 2022 for literature describing patient-reported outcome measures after meniscus surgery in discoid or non-discoid meniscus tears. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Clinical outcome data on Lysholm, Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), revision rates, and complications were recorded, with MINORS and Detsky scores used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies comprising 2213 patients were included with a mean age of 38.6 years (range: 9.0-64.4). The mean follow-up time was 54.1 months (range: 1-234) and the average percentage of female participants was 46.8% (range: 9.5-95.5). The mean change between pre-operative and post-operative Lysholm scores ranged from 21.0-39.0, 7.4-24.1, and 24.2-48.4 in the discoid, non-discoid meniscectomy, and non-discoid repair groups, respectively. The mean change in Tegner scores ranged from 0.0 to 2.3, 1.3, and 0.4-1.3 in the discoid, non-discoid meniscectomy, and non-discoid repair groups, respectively. Pre-operative IKDC scores were not reported, however mean post-operative IKDC scores ranged from 77.4 to 96.0, 46.9 to 85.7, and 63.1 to 94.0 in discoid, non-discoid meniscectomy, and non-discoid repair groups, respectively. Revision rates for discoid procedures, non-discoid meniscectomies, and non-discoid meniscus repairs ranged from 3.2 to 44.0%, 8.3 to 56.0%, and 5.9 to 28.0%, respectively. The most common reasons for revision were acute trauma and persistent pain.

CONCLUSION

Discoid saucerization procedures with or without repair leads to similar Lysholm scores as non-discoid repair procedures, and similar IKDC scores and revision rates compared to non-discoid meniscectomy or repair procedures. Patients undergoing discoid procedures appeared to have slightly higher Tegner activity scores compared to patients undergoing non-discoid procedures; however this is to be considered in the context of a younger population of patients undergoing discoid procedures than non-discoid procedures. This information can help guide surgeons in the decision-making process when treating patients with discoid menisci, and should guide further investigations on this topic.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Semimembranosus Tendon Entrapment by an All-Inside Meniscal Suture

Meniscal suturing has become the gold standard when it comes to meniscal tears in vascularized areas, especially in the younger population. The all-inside meniscal suturing technique has gained popularity in the past year due to decreased operative time as well as decreased risk of adverse events, as compared to other modalities. However, several complications have been reported with the all-inside technique, including soft tissue and neurovascular injury. This is the first case reporting a semimembranosus tendon entrapment following an all-inside medial meniscal suture. Being aware of such complications is crucial in order to avoid them and treat them promptly should they arise.

Meniscal Repair Outcomes at Greater Than 5 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The utilization of meniscal repair techniques continues to evolve in an effort to maximize the rate of healing. Meniscal repair outcomes at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively appear to better represent the true failure rates. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature was conducted to assess the rate of failure at a minimum of 5 years after meniscal repair.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the outcomes of meniscal repair at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. A standardized search and review strategy was utilized. Failure was defined as recurrent clinical symptoms or a meniscal reintervention to repair or resect the meniscus in any capacity, as defined by the study. When reported, outcomes were assessed relative to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) status, sex, age, and postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies of 1,612 patients and 1,630 meniscal repairs were included in this review and meta-analysis. The pooled overall failure rate was 22.6%, while the failure rate of modern repairs (excluding early-generation all-inside devices) was 19.5%. Medial repairs were significantly more likely to fail compared with lateral repairs (23.9% versus 12.6%, p = 0.04). Failure rates were similar for inside-out (14.2%) and modern all-inside repairs (15.8%). Early-generation all-inside devices had a significantly higher failure rate (30.2%) compared with modern all-inside devices (15.8%, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in meniscal failure rate between repairs with concomitant ACL reconstruction (21.2%) and repairs in ACL-intact knees (23.3%, p = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Modern meniscal repair had an overall failure rate of 19.5% at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. Modern all-inside techniques appear to have improved the success rate of meniscal repair compared with use of early-generation all-inside devices. Lateral repairs were significantly more likely to be successful compared with medial repairs, while no difference was seen between patients undergoing meniscal repair with and without concomitant ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Meniscus Repair Part 2: Technical Aspects, Biologic Augmentation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes

Multiple meniscal repair techniques exist, and successful healing and excellent patient outcomes have been reported with a variety of all-inside and open techniques. Increased awareness and recognition of root tears and meniscocapsular separations are topics of recent interest. The ideal treatment of these injuries remains uncertain, and definitive recommendations regarding their treatment are lacking. Postoperative protocols regarding weight bearing and range of motion are controversial and require future study. The role of biologics in the augmentation of meniscal repair remains unclear but promising. An evidence-based individualized approach for meniscal repair focusing on clinical outcomes and value is essential.

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.

Nineteen percent of meniscus repairs are being revised and failures frequently occur after the second postoperative year: a systematic review and meta-analysis with a minimum follow-up of 5 years

PURPOSE

Meniscus repair has gained increasing interest over the last two decades as loss of meniscus tissue predisposes to early onset knee arthritis. Although there are many reports of meniscus repair outcome in short-term studies, data on the long-term outcome of meniscus repair are still scarce. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the overall failure rate of meniscus repair with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Additionally, possible factors influencing meniscus repair outcome were assessed.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies of the last 20 years reporting on meniscus repair outcome with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search terms used for this study were ([meniscus OR meniscal] AND repair). Titles and abstracts were evaluated by two authors independently. Using meta package of R (version 3.6.2), random-effect models were performed to pool failure rates. Subgroup analyses were performed and effect estimates in form of an odds ratio with 95% CIs were established.

RESULTS

In total, 12 studies with 864 patients were included. Degenerative tears were excluded in two studies and one study only included traumatic meniscus tears. Other studies did not state whether the cause of meniscus tear was degenerative or traumatic. Studies reporting meniscus repair outcome on root repairs, revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, discoid menisci or ramp lesions were excluded. Revision surgery was used as failure definition in all included studies. The overall failure rate of meniscal repair at a mean follow-up of 86 months was 19.1%. There was no significant difference in meniscus repair outcome when performed in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared to isolated meniscus repair (18.7% vs. 28%; n.s.) or when performed on the lateral meniscus compared to the medial meniscus (19.5% vs. 24.4%; n.s.). There was no significant difference of meniscus repair outcome between vertical/longitudinal tears and bucket-handle tears (n.s.). Thirty-six percent of meniscus repair failures occur after the second postoperative year. The only significant finding was that inside-out repair results in a lower failure rate compared to all-inside repair (5.6% vs. 22.3%; p = 0.009) at 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The overall meniscus repair failure rate remains nineteen percent in long-term studies. The cause of failure is poorly documented, and it remains unclear whether failure of the meniscus repair itself or additional adjacent tears lead to revision surgery. Despite the given technical advantages of all-inside repair devices, this meta-analysis cannot demonstrate superior outcomes compared to inside-out or outside-in repair at 5 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

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.

Excellent medium-term survival of an all-inside tensionable knotted suture device justifies repair of most meniscal tears encountered during reconstructive knee ligament surgery

PURPOSE

All-inside meniscal repair devices have evolved to allow surgeons to undertake complex repairs in a timely and efficient manner. This is advantageous in active patients, where meniscus preservation is critical in preserving joint function and stability. The aim of the study was to evaluate the failure rate of all-inside meniscal repair performed in patients undergoing reconstructive ligament surgery using a particular meniscal repair device.

METHODS

Patients were identified using a single-site prospectively maintained patient registry. Primary outcome was failure, defined as return to surgery with documented failure of repair. Complication rates and functional scores were also recorded. Patients in whom meniscal repair failure was identified were further assessed, to identify any common features.

RESULTS

Over an 8-year period, 323 patients underwent meniscal repair at the time of ligament reconstruction, compared to 244 meniscectomies. Of these, 286 patients underwent repair using an all-inside suture device. One-hundred and twenty-seven repairs were to the medial meniscus only, 124 were lateral, and in 35 patients both menisci were repaired. Follow-up was to a median of 51.5 months. There were 31 (9.7%) failures reported at a median of 22 months post-operatively (IQR 13.5-41.5). Medial repair failures were seen more frequently than lateral (13.6% versus 5.6% OR 2.62 95% CI 1.17-5.88 p = 0.022). Failure of ACL reconstruction was associated with meniscal repair failure (OR 5.83 95% CI 1.55-21.95 p = 0.0039). Multi-ligament reconstruction was undertaken in 70/286 patients receiving meniscal repair and was not associated with failure (OR 1.3 95% CI 0.57-2.98 p = 0.51). Mode number of all-inside sutures used was 3 in both medial and lateral repairs (Range 1-9 lateral; 1-7 medial).

CONCLUSIONS

All-inside repair is a safe and versatile technique which can be used in the majority of meniscal tears encountered during ligament reconstruction with excellent mid-term success. Failure is seen more commonly in medial sided repairs and with failure of ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Recent Trends in Concomitant Meniscal Procedures During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The chondroprotective effect and secondary stabilizing role of the meniscus has been well-established. Meniscal preservation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been advocated in the literature and supported by advancements in surgical techniques.

PURPOSE

To examine the recent trends in concomitant partial meniscectomy and meniscal repair procedures with ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiological study.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic meniscectomy (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] codes 29880, 29881), meniscal repair (CPT codes 29882, 29883), and ACLR (CPT code 29888) between 2010 and 2018 were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. We calculated the proportion of patients who underwent each surgery type, stratified by year and by patient age and body mass index (BMI) groups. The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to analyze yearly proportions of concomitant meniscal surgery types.

RESULTS

During the 9-year study period, 22,760 patients underwent either isolated ACLR (n = 10,562) or ACLR with concomitant meniscal surgery (either meniscectomy [n = 8931] or meniscal repair [n = 3267]). There was a gradual decrease in the proportion of meniscectomies (from 80.8% of concomitant procedures in 2010 to 63.8% in 2018), while the proportion of meniscal repairs almost doubled (from 19.2% in 2010 to 36.2% in 2018) (trend, P < .001). ACLR with meniscal repair increased in patients aged 35 to 44 years and 45 to 54 years (trend, P = .027) between 2010 and 2018; at the same time, the proportion of normal weight patients decreased by 17.7%, the proportion of overweight patients increased by 13.2%, and increases were seen in BMI groups corresponding to obesity classes 1 to 3 (trend, P < .001). In 2010, the average BMI of patients undergoing ACLR with meniscectomy versus meniscal repair differed by 2 (P = .004), but by 2018 the difference was nonsignificant (28.83 ± 5.80 vs 28.53 ± 5.73; P = .113).

CONCLUSION

Between 2010 and 2018, there was an upward trend in the proportion of meniscal repairs performed during ACLR, with notable increases in the proportion of repairs being performed on older, overweight, and obese patients.

Risk factors for all-inside meniscal repair failure in isolation and in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND

This study examines the relationship between meniscus tear presentations and failure rates following all-inside repair in isolation and in conjunction with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Eighty seven consecutive patients undergoing all-inside meniscal repair at a single institution from July 2016 to June 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Details of patient presentation, tear type and location, the presence or absence of simultaneous ACL reconstruction, and surgical repair details were recorded to evaluate the relationship between patient characteristics and the primary endpoint of repair failure.

RESULTS

Patients were followed for an average of 2.7 ± 0.8 years. Three patients (3.4%) experienced 30-day complications including 1 deep vein thrombosis and 2 joint aspirations. Within the study time frame, 15 repairs (17.2%) failed, with 10 (11.5%) failing within one year of the initial procedure; the average time to failure was 12.3 ± 9.0 months. Patients undergoing concurrent ACL reconstruction were less likely to experience repair failure (9.7% vs. 36.0%, p = .009), while bucket-handle repairs were more likely to fail during the study period (45.0% vs. 9.0%, p = .001). These trends remained after controlling for tear location, body mass index, and number of sutures (ACL reconstruction Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.229, p = .029; Bucket-handle OR: 9.400, p = .003).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest concurrent ACL reconstruction at the time of meniscal repair is associated with increased repair survival. The all-inside technique may be successfully used across a variety of tear types and locations, although further study of its efficacy in repairing bucket-handle tears is warranted.

Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results From the MARS Cohort

BACKGROUND

Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health. This has been a successful intervention in patients with isolated tears and tears associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction have not been documented.

PURPOSE

To examine the prevalence and 2-year operative success rate of meniscal repairs in the revision ACL setting.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

All cases of revision ACL reconstruction with concomitant meniscal repair from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Two-year follow-up was obtained by phone and email to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred to either knee since the initial revision ACL reconstruction. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify the pathologic condition and subsequent treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 218 patients (18%) from 1205 revision ACL reconstructions underwent concurrent meniscal repairs. There were 235 repairs performed: 153 medial, 48 lateral, and 17 medial and lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 178; 76%) were performed with all-inside techniques. Two-year surgical follow-up was obtained on 90% (197/218) of the cohort. Overall, the meniscal repair failure rate was 8.6% (17/197) at 2 years. Of the 17 failures, 15 were medial (13 all-inside, 2 inside-out) and 2 were lateral (both all-inside). Four medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACL reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Meniscal repair in the revision ACL reconstruction setting does not have a high failure rate at 2-year follow-up. Failure rates for medial and lateral repairs were both <10% and consistent with success rates of primary ACL reconstruction meniscal repair. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears.

Alternative All-Inside Technique of Repairing a Vertical Meniscus Tear

Lateral meniscus vertical tears are often seen with acute anterior cruciate ligament injuries. The inside-out technique of repairing the meniscal tear is currently the gold standard treatment. However, every technique has its own drawbacks. The inside-out technique has possible risk of infection and neurovascular complications. All-inside techniques are becoming increasingly popular. A novel all-inside technique and a variation of it for meniscus repair using an antegrade suture passer like a Knee Scorpion are described. These are cost effective using a 2-0 FiberWire for repair of vertical meniscal tears. This technique also provides a better control of reduction at tear site through tensioning the 2 suture limbs. It is cost effective, easy to use, and has less neurovascular complications as compared with the inside -out technique.

Subjective Knee Function and Risk of Failure Are Equivalent for Men and Women at 5 Years After Meniscus Repair

PURPOSE

To determine whether subjective knee function or risk of repair failure differ between men and women at mean 5 years following meniscal repair with or without concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

A total of 235 patients (97 women, 138 men; mean age, 29.1 years; standard deviation, 11.3) were assessed for meniscus repair failure and postoperative knee function at mean 5.8 years follow-up. Knee symptoms were assessed with International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective (IKDC-S) scores. Postoperative activity scores were assessed with Marx activity score. Independent effects of patient age and activity level on meniscus failure risk and patient-reported outcomes were determined by multivariate analysis with adjustment for age, body mass index, anterior cruciate ligament status, tear pattern, and number of implants used at the time of surgery.

RESULTS

Failures occurred in 18.9% of men and 21.0% of women with no difference in mean time to failure (P = .75) or risk of failure for men vs women (P = .57) in the univariate analysis. Male sex was not an independent risk factor for failure after adjustment for patient age, body mass index, concomitant anterior cruciate ligament status, tear pattern, or number of implants used (P = .16). Marx activity scores at follow-up were higher among men in multivariate analysis (P = .009). Men and women had similar IKDC-S scores at follow-up in the unadjusted (P = .25) and multivariate analyses (P = .21).

CONCLUSIONS

Following meniscus repair, both sexes report similar subjective knee function, though men have higher self-reported activity scores. Meniscus repair failure risk does not differ between men or women at mid-term follow up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective case-control study.

Editorial Commentary: Women and Men Fare Equally Well After Meniscal Repair

Knee meniscal repair has a success rate of approximately 80% in both men and women, and meniscal repair is a critical procedure for maintaining long-term knee health.

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.

What are the factors to affect outcome and healing of meniscus bucket handle tears?

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to identify patient, meniscus rupture and surgical characteristics that influence the outcome and clinical healing following operative repair of bucket handle tears.

METHODS

Between 02/2006 and 10/2012, a total of 38 patients (14 women, 24 men) with bucket handle tears underwent surgical meniscus repair. There were 27 isolated repairs and 11 with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) replacement. Patients were analyzed on an average of 44.4 months (range 15-96 months) after surgery by the use of standardized subjective scoring instruments [Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Tegner Activity Scale (TAS)]. To identify factors affecting the outcome and suture survival, patient-specific, trauma-specific as well as meniscus- and surgery-specific factors were collected. Patients were divided in two groups with healed menisci (group 1) and re-rupture subjects (group 2). Meniscus re-rupture was defined as a clinical failure.

RESULTS

There were 25 patients with healed menisci and 13 (34.2%) that sustained re-rupture and underwent either partial meniscectomy (n = 8) or re-suture (n = 5). Group 1 achieved slightly higher outcome compared to group 2 [Lysholm: 87.8 vs. 84.3 (p = 0.35), IKDC: 86.9 vs. 85.7 (p = 0.67), KOOS: 91.3 vs. 90.5 (p = 0.74)]. TAS was better for group 2 [5.9 vs. 6.8 (p = 0.36)]. Strong impact to result in a significantly increased outcome was identified for higher age, subjective knee joint stability, high preoperative Lysholm Score, short trauma-to-repair time, previous ACL reconstruction and a smaller number of sutures to fulfill meniscus repair. Lower patient age, male gender and higher activity level had the strongest impact to provoke re-rupture.

CONCLUSION

Clinical outcome after meniscus bucket handle suture is satisfying. Re-rupture rate among this collective was 34.2%. Clear risk factors were identified for diminished clinical healing and outcome.

Similar failure rate in immediate post-operative weight bearing versus protected weight bearing following meniscal repair on peripheral, vertical meniscal tears

PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS

Post-operative weight bearing after meniscal repair is a point of debate among physicians. This study sought to evaluate whether patients adhering to an immediate WBAT rehabilitation programme have a higher failure rate compared to those adhering to a more traditional, protected, NWB status following meniscal repair. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in failure between the two groups.

METHODS

A retrospective review of meniscal repair patients greater than 5 years from surgery was performed for patients receiving meniscal repair treatment. Patients were categorized by post-surgical weight-bearing status, either NWB or WBAT, and then analysed for failure of repair. Failure was defined as re-operation on the torn meniscus. The study controlled for variables including age at surgery, sex, height, weight, and BMI, classification of tear type, acuity of the tear, repair location (medial or lateral), repair location within the meniscus, repair technique, and concomitant procedures.

RESULTS

Re-operations were performed in 61 of 157 patients [38.9%]. There was no difference between weight-bearing groups for failure of meniscus repair (n.s.). The tears were acute vertical tears located in the posterior horn and body. For the 61 patients with re-operation, the average time to re-operation was 2.2 years with 10 [16%] > 5 years from surgery, 17 [28%] 2-5 years from surgery, and 34 [56%] < 2 years from surgery. In isolated meniscal repair patients (n = 62), there was no difference between weight-bearing groups for rate of re-operation (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Weight bearing as tolerated after meniscal repair for peripheral, vertical tears does not result in a higher failure rate than traditional, non-weight bearing over a five-year follow-up period. The clinical relevance is that, based on these data, it may be appropriate to allow weight bearing as tolerated following meniscal repair of peripheral, vertical tears.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, Level III.

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.

Long-term outcome after all inside meniscal repair using the FasT-Fix system

Purpose

Meniscal surgery is one of the most performed orthopaedic procedures. Because of its chondroprotective properties, meniscal repair should be attempted whenever possible. Several techniques are described in literature, e.g. all-inside repair using FasT-Fix System from Smith & Nephew. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome at a minimum of 12 years following meniscal repair using FasT-Fix System.

Materials and Methods

Patients who underwent meniscal repair using FasT-Fix System in the time from 2001 to 2003 were analyzed. We included isolated meniscal tears and combined tears with a concomitant ACL rupture. A median 12-year follow-up was conducted in 2015. Failure was defined as a new surgical procedure to the same meniscus. Moreover, functional outcome was evaluated using the KOOS and tegner activity score (TAS).

Results

At follow-up 27% had undergone further surgery to the repaired meniscus. There was no significant difference between isolated and combined group (p = 0.582). The failure rate was significantly higher in females (female 48% versus male 15%; p = 0.005). Comparing sports there was a significantly higher failure rate within soccer and indoor sports group (p = 0.002).Comparing isolated and combined injury groups there was no difference in the TAS (p > 0.05). Only 1 item of KOOS showed no significant difference: 95.33 versus 94.48 for daily life activities (p > 0.05). The other items showed significant differences.49 out of 51 patients with combined injuries suffered an additional ACL rupture. There was no significant difference regarding the meniscal repair failure rate when comparing the groups of simultaneous and delayed ACL repair (p = 0.521).

Conclusions

At 12 years' follow-up 73% had a successful surgery. KOOS was significantly better within isolated meniscus tears. Both groups showed no difference in the TAS. There were no differences regarding failure rate in the comparison of simultaneous or delayed ACL-reconstruction.

Sport-specific outcomes after isolated meniscal repair: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess sport-specific outcomes after repair of isolated meniscal tears.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search of the MEDLINE and Cochrane database was performed in May 2016 to identify studies that reported sport-specific outcomes after isolated meniscal repair. Included studies were abstracted regarding study characteristics, patient demographics, surgical technique, rehabilitation, and outcome measures. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Coleman Methodology Score (CMS).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies with a total of 664 patients met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the included studies was moderate, with a mean CMS of 69.7 ± 8.3. The mean patient age was 26 ± 7.2 years and 71% of patients were male. Mean preoperative Tegner score improved from 3.5 ± 0.3 to 6.2 ± 0.8 postoperatively. Comparing preinjury and postoperative Tegner scores, comparable values were observed (6.3 ± 1.1 and 5.7 ± 0.8, respectively). Return to sports on the preinjury level was achieved in 89%. Mixed-level populations returned to their preinjury activity level in 90% and professional athletes in 86%. Mean delay of return to sports varied between 4.3 and 6.5 months, with comparable results between professional and mixed-level athletes. The pooled failure rate was 21%. The failure rate was lower in professional athletes compared to mixed-level athletes (9% vs. 22%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that isolated repair of meniscal tears results in good to excellent sport-specific outcomes and a high return to sports rate in both recreational and professional athletes. The failure rate is comparable to systematic reviews not focusing on sportive patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV systematic review of Level I to Level IV studies.

Arthroscopic medial meniscal repair with or without concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A subgroup analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few large-scale, long-term studies comparing medial meniscal repairs with or without concurrent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

A total of 140 patients who underwent arthroscopic medial meniscal repair were divided into two groups: Group A, meniscus repair only and Group B, meniscus repair with concurrent ACL reconstruction. Clinical assessments in- cluded physical examination findings, Lysholm score, and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form. Barret criteria were used for the clinical assessment of healing status. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)was obtained to confirmhealing and failure. Subgroups of participants were compared in terms of suture technique, type of tear, and location of tear. KT-2000 arthrometer testing was used for objective evaluation of anterior-posterior knee movement.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up duration was 61 (34-85) months. Clinical outcomes in both groups were significantly improved compared to baseline (P=0.001 vs. P=0.001); however, there was no significant between-group difference in postoperative Lysholm and IKDC scores (P=0.830). The outcomes of three participants (seven percent) in Group A and 11 (11.3%) in Group B were considered as treatment failures (P=0.55). Red-red zone tears had higher scores. Mean postoperative KT2000 arthrometer values of failed participants in Groups A and B were 4.66mm (range, four to six) and 5.2mm (range, two to seven), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Concurrentmedialmeniscus repair and ACL reconstruction did not have clinical superiority over meniscus repair alone. Repairs in the red-red zone appeared to be associated with better outcomes.

Prognostic factors for all-inside meniscal repair. A 87-case series

INTRODUCTION

Repair is indicated for tears in non-degenerative menisci. The literature reports a 15% failure rate for all-inside repair. The aim of the present study was to determine prognostic factors for failure of all-inside meniscal repair. The study hypothesis was that epidemiological, clinical and surgical factors affect success.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study included 87 meniscal repair procedures, with or without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. Lesions were located in red-red or red-white zones. After freshening, repair comprised an all-inside arthroscopic technique using the FasT-Fix^® system (Smith & Nephew), with (70.1%) or without ligament reconstruction; all ACL tears were reconstructed. Preoperative data comprised: age, gender, smoking status, sports activity, trauma-to-surgery time, body mass index (BMI), frontal morphotype, and IKDC score. Intra- and postoperative data comprised: meniscal lesion characteristics, location, number of sutures, type of ACL reconstruction, presence of chondropathy, authorized postoperative ranges of motion, and IKDC score. Failure was defined by secondary meniscectomy.

RESULTS

At 31 months' follow-up, there were 13 failures (15%). Mean postoperative IKDC score was 88.19 (range: 64.37-98.95). Bucket-handle lesion (P=0.006) and BMI>25 (P=0.014) emerged as significant factors of poor prognosis.

DISCUSSION

The present failure rate matched those reported in the literature. The more extensive the lesion, the higher the risk of failure. High BMI incurs mechanical stresses that increase the risk of failure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective cohort study.

All-inside Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair Technique Using a Midbody Accessory Portal

Treatment of symptomatic meniscal tears continues to evolve as we improve our understanding of the biomechanical role of the meniscus and its long-term importance to the health of the knee joint. Suture repair of meniscal tears is challenging, yet the incidence of repairs among our colleagues continues to rise as we aim to preserve meniscal tissue. Many elements of performing a repair are tedious and difficult, including proper meniscal preparation, reduction, mattress suture placement, and fixation. The tear pattern and location present another layer of difficulty. The most widely used all-inside repair devices are harpoon-style devices and present their own challenges in using them without causing harm to the meniscus and surrounding cartilage. In this article, we describe a simple all-inside meniscal repair technique to improve the reproducibility and reliability of meniscal repairs using an accessory midbody meniscal portal and a surgical probe. This ensures proper placement of mattress sutures in a reduced meniscus, with a reduced risk of collateral injury to the meniscus and articular cartilage. Furthermore, this surgical technique is adaptable to any meniscal fixation method to the medial or lateral meniscus.

Clinical outcomes following surgically repaired bucket-handle meniscus tears

OBJECTIVES

Meniscus tears are one of the most common knee injuries. Our goal is to investigate the failure rate for surgically repaired bucket-handle meniscus tears and compare clinical outcomes of repairs that failed versus those that did not, at a minimum 2-year follow-up interval.

METHODS

51 patients were identified in this retrospective cohort study who experienced bucket-handle meniscus tears that were isolated or with concomitant ACL injury. Inclusion criteria included age range from 13-55 years, confirmed bucket-handle meniscus tear by MRI and intraoperatively, and at least two-years of post-operative follow-up following index repair. Demographic data and outcome surveys were collected at a minimum of two-years follow-up after repair.

RESULTS

Of the 51 patients that had a bucket-handle meniscal repair, 12 (23.5%) were defined as failures (return of symptoms alongside re-tear in the same zone of the repaired meniscus within two years of surgery). No demographic variables (age, sex, and BMI smoking status, location of tear, or concomitant ACL tear) significantly correlated with failure. The mean of the Sports and Recreation KOOS was significantly lower between the non-failure (87 ± 14.4) and failure (70 ± 17.2) cohorts (p = 0.0072). The Quality of Life subscale was significantly lower between the non-failure (76 ± 15.8) and failure (57 ± 18.2) groups (p = 0.0058). There was a significant difference in the post-operative Lysholm scores (p = 0.0039) with a mean of 90 ± 9.1 for the entire cohort and means of 92 ± 8.4 and 83 ± 8.6, for non-failure and failure groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a higher failure rate (23.5%) for bucket-handle meniscus repairs at two-year follow up than has been cited in the literature, which is typically less than 20%, with significantly lower KOOS Quality of Life and Sports and Recreation subscales and Lysholm scores for the failure cohort. This is the first study to report these outcome scores solely for bucket-handle meniscus repairs, shedding light on the post-operative quality of life of patients with repair success or failure.

All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Meniscal Repair With Concurrent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-regression Analysis

BACKGROUND

Meniscal tears are frequently repaired during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

PURPOSE

To systematically evaluate differences in clinical failures between all-inside and inside-out meniscal repairs performed during ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review was perfomed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The databases queried included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All English-language studies reporting failure rates after meniscal repair with either the all-inside or inside-out technique performed in conjunction with ACLR were identified between 1980 and 2015. Studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Reported outcomes, clinical meniscal repair failures, and complications were assessed. Studies were weighted according to the size of the clinical series and mean follow-up length. Inverse-variance-weighted mixed models were used to evaluate whether there was a significant difference in pooled reoperation rates between repair techniques.

RESULTS

In total, 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 studies reported outcomes after all-inside repair, and 10 studies reported outcomes after inside-out repair (2 studies reported both). A total of 1126 patients were included in the analysis. The mean (±SD) follow-up for all-inside repair was 58.64 ± 22.24 months versus 76.25 ± 31.69 months for inside-out repair ( P = .13). The clinical failure rate for all-inside meniscal repair performed concurrently with ACLR was 16% (121/744) compared with 10% (39/382) for inside-out repair, and this was found to be significant ( P = .016). Implant irritation and device migration were the most common complications reported for all-inside repair; complication rates did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

There may be fewer early clinical failures when the inside-out technique is utilized for meniscal repair at the time of concomitant ACLR. Additional long-term studies will be useful to determine the operative success of these repairs over time.

Inside-Out Versus All-Inside Repair of Isolated Meniscal Tears: An Updated Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Meniscal tears are common in the young, active population. In this group of patients, repair is advised when possible. While inside-out repair remains the standard technique, recent advances in all-inside repair devices have led to a growth in their popularity. Previous reviews on the topic have focused on outdated implants of limited clinical relevance.

PURPOSE

To determine the difference in failure rates, functional outcomes, and complications between inside-out and modern all-inside repairs.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria were (1) clinical study reporting on all-inside or inside-out repair, (2) evidence levels 1 to 4, and (3) use of modern all-inside implants for all-inside repairs. Exclusion criteria were (1) use of meniscal arrows or screws and (2) concomitant surgical procedures. Study characteristics, subjects, surgical technique, clinical outcomes, and complications were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 481 studies were screened and assessed for eligibility, which identified 27 studies for review. Studies defined clinical failure as persistent mechanical symptoms, effusion, or joint line tenderness, while anatomic failure was incomplete or no healing on MRI or second-look arthroscopy. There were no significant differences in clinical or anatomic failure rates between inside-out and all-inside repairs (clinical failure: 11% vs 10%, respectively, P = .58; anatomic failure: 13% vs 16%, respectively, P = .63). Mean ± SD Lysholm and Tegner scores for inside-out repair were 88.0 ± 3.5 and 5.3 ± 1.2, while the respective scores for all-inside repair were 90.4 ± 3.7 and 6.3 ± 1.3. Complications occurred at a rate of 5.1% for inside-out repairs and 4.6% for all-inside repairs.

CONCLUSION

The quality of the evidence comparing inside-out and all-inside meniscal repair remains low, with a majority of the literature being evidence level 4 studies. In this review comparing modern all-inside devices with inside-out repair, no differences were seen in failure rates, functional outcome scores, or complication rates.

Repair of isolated horizontal meniscal tears with all-inside suture materials using the overlock method: outcome study with a minimum 2-year follow-up

Background

This study aimed to consider the use of a meniscal repair in patients in order to close the horizontal cleavage extending up to the avascular zone. The hypothesis was to examine the clinical and arthroscopic outcomes following meniscal repair of degenerative horizontal cleavage tears with new-generation all-inside suture materials using the overlock method.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 55 patients which had a horizontal pattern, and finally, 27 patients with a horizontal tear only which required no additional intra-articular surgical intervention were included in the study. Arthroscopic meniscal repair was performed using the overlock method. Functional outcomes were evaluated using Lysholm knee scoring scale, Cincinnati scores, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) criteria and Tegner activity scale. Assessment of meniscal healing was evaluated clinically by the presence of meniscal signs. The preoperative and postoperative MRIs were examined.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 29 months (range, 24–38). The mean Lysholm score improved significantly from 59.5 ± 12.4 points preoperatively to 90.0 ± 4.7 points postoperatively (P < 0.0001). The Cincinnati score increased from 14.8 ± 5.3 to 26.9 ± 1.6 (P < 0.0001). The Tegner activity score increased from 3.7 ± 1.4 to 6.4 ± 1.6 (P < 0.0001). The mean IKDC subjective score also improved significantly from 48.5 ± 9.8 preoperatively to 90.4 ± 5.0 postoperatively (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Meniscal repair of degenerative horizontal tears using the overlock method resulted in improved Lysholm and IKDC subjective scores. With careful selection of the patients and the horizontal meniscus tears, the success of the meniscus repairs increases. Repair can be recommended for all horizontal meniscus tears which can be repaired arthroscopically.

New Complication Associated With All-Inside Meniscal Repair Device: Ultrasound-Aided Diagnosis and Operative Localization of Foreign Body Reaction

Background:

The importance of meniscal preservation has become widely accepted, and meniscal repair techniques have evolved over recent years. With new techniques come new complications, which are critical to recognize.

Purpose:

To describe a new complication of foreign body reaction from a nonabsorbable suture anchor associated with improper placement of the all-inside meniscal device.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

This study was a retrospective review of 3 patients who developed pain associated with a foreign body reaction from a misplaced all-inside meniscal device.

Results:

All patients had a delayed diagnosis (6 months to 8 years) and negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Diagnostic ultrasound identified the misplaced suture with foreign body reaction and was used to guide a diagnostic injection of local anesthetic prior to surgical intervention. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance was utilized to precisely localize and excise the suture material and associated reactive tissue.

Conclusion:

Foreign body reaction from a misplaced all-inside meniscal device is a previously unreported complication. Diagnosis is challenging as MRI and arthroscopy can be unrevealing. Diagnostic ultrasound was able to identify the foreign body reaction, confirm the diagnosis by facilitating diagnostic local anesthetic injection, and guide surgical excision. Sonographic evaluation should be considered in patients presenting with ongoing knee pain after all-inside meniscus repair.

Surgical Trends in the Treatment of Meniscal Tears: Analysis of Data From the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Certification Examination Database

BACKGROUND

The indications and criteria for meniscal repair are expanding in parallel with new understanding in biomechanics, joint pathophysiology, and increased physician education.

PURPOSE

To describe the practice patterns of arthroscopic meniscal treatment in recent years, compare the trends of arthroscopic meniscal repair versus arthroscopic meniscectomy, and compare sports fellowship-trained versus non-sports fellowship-trained surgeons in terms of arthroscopic meniscal treatment techniques among American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) candidates from 2004 to 2012.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

METHODS

The ABOS database was used to identify cases of meniscal repair, partial meniscectomy, and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction from 2004 to 2012. The number of surgeons contributing cases for each calendar year was also recorded, along with the number who had sports fellowship training. Rates were calculated as the number of procedures per surgeon per year. Trends were analyzed using Poisson regression analysis to model the rate of each procedure over time.

RESULTS

The rate of all meniscal procedures per surgeon decreased 12% from 18.4 cases per surgeon in 2004 to 16.2 cases per surgeon in 2012. There was a smaller decrease for sports fellowship-trained surgeons (7%) than for non-sports fellowship-trained surgeons (32%). The rate of meniscal repair cases per surgeon increased 37% from 1.6 to 2.2 cases per surgeon. The rate of meniscectomy cases decreased 17% from 16.8 to 14.0 cases per surgeon. When comparing fellowship-trained surgeons to non-fellowship-trained surgeons, there was no significant difference in meniscal repair rates over time. There was a decrease of 35% in rates of meniscectomy among non-fellowship-trained surgeons compared with 11% among fellowship-trained surgeons.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insight into the current practice trends of recent orthopaedic training graduates in the treatment of meniscal tears. The results suggest that reported meniscal procedures have decreased overall among ABOS candidates but that meniscal repair cases have increased. The findings support the recent shift toward evidence-based medicine, with changing practice patterns that may reflect the dissemination of recent findings from large, high-quality research studies in this field.

Long-term outcome after all-inside meniscal repair using the RapidLoc system

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the outcome at a minimum of 7 years following meniscal repair using the RapidLoc (suture anchor) system. It was hypothesized that most patients would have an intact meniscus, as has been reported in several short- and medium-term studies.

METHODS

In the time period from 2002 to 2007, all patients with a vertical longitudinal tear of the meniscus that was judged to be repairable were treated with rasping of the tear area and nearby parameniscal synovium and fixation of the torn part with the use of RapidLoc implants. Using a surgeon-administered form, baseline information about the arthroscopic findings and procedures performed was recorded (at the time of surgery). A median 10-year (range 7-12 years) follow-up was conducted in 2014-2015, and surgical procedures to the knee following the (index) meniscal repair were registered. Treatment failure was defined as a new surgical procedure to the same meniscus.

RESULTS

At the time of follow-up, 39 out of 82 patients (48 %) had undergone further surgery to the repaired meniscus (failures). Nine of these occurred within the first 6 months after surgery, 21 within the first 12 months and 26 within the first 24 months. Thus, the failure rate was 11 % at 6 months, 23 % at 12 months and 28 % at 2 years. One-third (N = 13) of the failures occurred 2 years or later after the (index) meniscal repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term results of meniscal repair using the RapidLoc implants were found to be poor with a high failure rate. In a large proportion of the cases, re-rupture appeared several years after the index surgery, and a commonly used follow-up period of 2 years would therefore fail to detect them. In the day-by-day clinical work, of interest to orthopaedic surgeons is that meniscal repair using an all-inside technique similar to the one used by the authors may not solve the problem in the long run.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Meniscal survival rate after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Meniscal suture provides well-documented benefits. Integrity of the cruciate ligaments of the knee is a prerequisite for meniscal healing. Nevertheless, reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) does not consistently prevent recurrent tearing of a sutured meniscus. We evaluated meniscal survival rates, 5 and 10 years after meniscal suture concomitant with an ACL reconstruction. We compared the outcomes of these repaired menisci to those in which no menisci tears were detected during ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

In this multi-centric retrospective study, we included two groups. One group consists of patients who underwent a meniscal repair. This group was further divided into two subgroups based on whether follow-up was 5 years (n=76) or 10 years (n=39). The control group included 120 patients with normal menisci observed during surgery. We studied meniscal survival rates in each group, and we analyzed risk factors associated with the recurrence of meniscal lesions.

RESULTS

The 5-year meniscal survival rate was significantly higher in the control group than in the meniscal-repair group (95% vs. 80%, respectively; P=0.0029). The controls group also had a higher meniscal survival rate after 10 years, although the difference was not statistically significant (88% vs. 77%, P=0.07). A difference in knee laxity greater than 4mm was associated with a 5-fold increase in the risk of recurrent meniscal tears (P=0.0057). After 5 years, the risk of recurrence was higher for the medial than for the lateral meniscus, whereas after 10 years the difference was no longer statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

Although insufficient healing after meniscal suturing contributes to the risk of further meniscal tears, new lesions can develop in menisci that were undamaged at the time of ACL reconstruction. The risk of a new meniscal lesion is strongly associated with inadequate control of antero-posterior and rotational laxity. Some apparently "new menisci lesions" seems to have been missed during ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.