All-inside suture device is superior to meniscal arrows in meniscal repair: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

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.

Examining the Evidence Regarding Smoking and Patient Outcomes for Isolated Meniscus Pathology: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Smoking is a well-known cause of impairment in wound healing and postoperative outcomes; however, its effects on treating meniscus issues remain unclear. This study assesses the relationship between smoking and meniscus treatment outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 24 December 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies examining smoking's impact on patient outcomes regarding meniscus pathology. A secondary PubMed search targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the top ten orthopedic journals focusing on meniscus pathology and smoking as a demographic variable. Meta-analysis of six studies (n = 528) assessed meniscus failure rate based on smoking status. Eighteen observational studies (n = 8353 patients; 53.25% male; mean age: 51.35 ± 11.53 years; follow-up: 184.11 ± 117.34 months) were analyzed, covering meniscus repair, meniscectomy, allograft transplant, conservative care, and arthroscopy. Results showed four studies (36.36%) linked smoking with worse meniscus repair outcomes, while seven studies (63.64%) did not find significant associations. Meta-analysis from six studies showed no significant impact of smoking on repair failure (p = 0.118). Regarding meniscectomy, one study (33.33%) identified a significant association with smoking, but two did not. Only one (3.8%) of the RCTs in leading orthopedic journals included smoking as a factor. The evidence on smoking's effect on meniscus treatment is mixed, necessitating further investigation.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review.

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.

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.

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.

Predictive Factors for Failure of Meniscal Repair: A Retrospective Dual-Center Analysis of 918 Consecutive Cases

Background:

Meniscal surgery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by orthopaedic surgeons. Over the past decade, awareness has increased regarding the importance of meniscal preservation to prevent the development of osteoarthritis in the knee joint. Removal of meniscal tissue can lead to a high risk of cartilage degeneration, and moreover, meniscus-preserving surgery rather than meniscal resection is likely to have better long-term outcomes. Success rates after meniscal repair range from 60% to 95%, but many reports are based on a small number of patients.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to review all meniscal repairs and potential predictors for failure during a 12-year period. We hypothesized that meniscal anchors, lateral repairs, and repairs made in conjunction with an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) would have fewer failures than meniscal arrows, medial repairs, and isolated repairs. We also hypothesized that younger patients and acute tears would be associated with fewer failures.

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

This study was a dual-center, retrospective analysis on consecutive meniscal repairs. The surgical protocols were reviewed, including type of tear, location, associated injury to the knee, and surgery. The study endpoint was failure of repair, defined as a need for reoperation and secondary partial or total meniscal resection, within 3 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess repair survival, with multivariate Cox regression to adjust for confounders.

Results:

A total of 954 meniscal repairs were performed on 918 patients (536 male patients [58%]; 382 female patients [42%]) with a mean age of 26 years (range, 12-60 years). The failure rate for the entire cohort was 22.5%. Bioabsorbable arrows had significantly more failures than all-inside sutures with anchors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5; P = .002). Medial meniscal repairs had a higher failure rate than lateral meniscal repairs (HR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.3-6.0; P < .001). Simultaneous ACLR resulted in less failure than when no simultaneous ACLR was performed (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .009). Age at repair and acuity of tear did not affect the outcome (P = .6 and .07, respectively).

Conclusion:

The failure rate after meniscal repair was significantly higher on the medial side, especially when using arrows. Meniscal repairs performed concomitantly with an ACLR result in fewer reoperations.

Haemophilus Parainfluenzae Septic Arthritis Following Primary All-Inside Meniscus Repair: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Background: Haemophilus parainfluenzae (H. parainfluenzae) is a gram-negative rod that inhabits the oral cavity. It is a common cause of respiratory tract infections and rarely is responsible for musculoskeletal infections in immunocompetent hosts. We present a case of a 17-year-old male whose postoperative course following arthroscopic all-inside meniscus repair was complicated with H. parainfluenzae septic arthritis. The infection was successfully cleared with two arthroscopic irrigation and debridements and antibiotic therapy. The patient successfully returned to full-contact high school football at five months postoperatively. To our knowledge, this represents the first reported case of H. parainfluenzae infection following an orthopaedic procedure in an adolescent. Level of Evidence: IV.

Proximity of the Neurovascular Bundle During Posterior-Lateral Meniscal Repair: A Comparison of the Transpatellar, Anteromedial, and Anterolateral Portals

PURPOSE

To compare the neurovascular proximity of the transpatellar portal with that of the medial and lateral portals and to determine the safe penetration depth for an all-inside device for use on the posterior horn lateral meniscus.

METHODS

Dissection of the popliteal fossa was performed in 10 cadaveric knees to identify all structures. Arthroscopy was performed using penetration depths of 10, 12, 14, and 16 mm with the all-inside system through the anteromedial, anterolateral, and transpatellar portals. Penetrations were made 5 and 10 mm lateral to the posterior horn root at the meniscocapsular junction. Needle-tip distances were measured from the popliteal artery and vein, tibial nerve, and common peroneal nerve.

RESULTS

Among 240 trials, the average distance to the popliteal neurovascular bundle using the medial, transpatellar, and lateral approaches was 6.9 mm, 6.5 mm, and 3.1 mm, respectively. The transpatellar-portal needle had a larger distance from the neurovascular bundle than the lateral portal (P = .001), with no statistical difference compared with the medial portal (P = .58). Compared with the position at a 10-mm distance from the root, the position at a 5-mm distance from the root was closer to the neurovascular bundle in all approaches (P = .001). The transpatellar approach set to 14 mm had a 5% rate of capsular underpenetration and 10% rate of gastrocnemius penetration. The transpatellar and medial portals had no neurovascular penetrations, whereas the lateral approach had a 14% rate of penetration (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The transpatellar portal and anteromedial portal are in less proximity to the neurovascular bundle compared with the anterolateral portal for all-inside meniscal repair of the posterior horn lateral meniscus. Low rates of neurovascular penetration, gastrocnemius muscle penetration, and capsular underpenetration occurred with a depth setting of 14 mm.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study shows the utility of medial and transpatellar portals when using all-inside devices to repair posterior horn lateral meniscal tears and neurovascular proximity based on penetration depth.

Meniscus repairs can be saved in the event of postoperative septic arthritis

PURPOSE

No systematic studies on optimal treatment of postoperative septic arthritis following arthroscopic meniscus repair are available. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the fate of repaired menisci in cases of postoperative septic arthritis, with treatment for infection focused on arthroscopic irrigation and debridement (I&D) and intention to maintain the meniscus.

METHODS

Data of two sports orthopedics centers of the last 10 years were pooled (approximately 25,000 arthroscopic procedures of the knee). All cases of septic arthritis following arthroscopic meniscus repair were identified. These cases were retrospectively evaluated with regard to clinical course and management, especially the number of necessary I&Ds, if eradication was achieved, and if the repaired meniscus was retained or a partial resection was necessary ('early failure'). Patients with initially maintained meniscus repairs were contacted if further meniscus surgery was performed in further follow-up ('late failure').

RESULTS

20 patients with 23 repaired menisci were included. In 65% (13 cases), a concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed. A mean of 2.0 ± 1.0 (1-4) arthroscopic I&Ds were performed in the treatment of septic arthritis. In two cases, additional open surgery was performed (after outside-in sutures). Eradication was achieved in all cases. Four repaired menisci (17.4%) showed loosened fixation or substantial degradation and were consequently partially resected within treatment for septic arthritis (early failures). The follow-up rate for the 19 initially maintained menisci was 94.7% after 3.0 ± 2.2 years (median 2.8, 0.4-7.8). Three of these underwent further partial resection (13.0%). Cumulative 3-year survival rate (Kaplan-Meier method) of all repairs was 70.7% (95% CI 50.3-91.1%), and for the subgroup of initially maintained menisci 85.6% (95% CI 67.0-100.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Septic arthritis following meniscus repair can be successfully treated with (sequential) arthroscopic I&Ds. There is a considerable rate of early failures, however, in a mid-term follow-up the failure rate of initially retained menisci is low and comparable to what we know from the literature for cases without infection. Therefore, it is generally recommended to try to save the repaired menisci in these cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, therapeutic case series.

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.

Polyurethane-based cell-free scaffold for the treatment of painful partial meniscus loss

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to document, at mid-term follow-up, the clinical and MRI outcome of a polyurethane-based cell-free scaffold implanted to treat painful partial meniscus loss.

METHODS

Eighteen consecutive patients were enrolled and treated with arthroscopic polyurethane meniscal scaffold implantation and, in case of other comorbidities, with concurrent surgical procedures: 16 patients (9 men and 7 women, mean age 45 ± 13 years, mean BMI 25 ± 3, 12 medial and 4 lateral implants) were prospectively evaluated with the subjective and objective IKDC and the Tegner scores at 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 months of follow-up. Eleven patients were also evaluated by 1.5-T MRI at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

The IKDC subjective score showed a significant improvement from baseline to 24 months (45.6 ± 17.5 and 75.3 ± 14.8, respectively; p = 0.02) and subsequent stable results over time for up to 72 months (final score 75.0 ± 16.8). The Tegner score improvement between pre-operative status and final follow-up was also significant (p = 0.039). Nevertheless, the final score remained significantly lower than the pre-injury sports activity level (p = 0.027). High-resolution MRIs documented the presence of abnormal findings in terms of morphology, signal intensity, and interface between the implant and the native meniscus. Implant extrusion and bone oedema at the treated compartment were also observed in most of the cases, even though no correlation was found between imaging findings and clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study reports satisfactory clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up after polyurethane-based meniscal cell-free scaffold implantation. The treatment was effective both in cases of isolated partial meniscal lesions and in complex cases requiring the combination with other surgical procedures. On the other hand, a high rate of altered MRI aspects was documented. However, no correlation was found between the altered imaging parameters and the overall positive clinical findings, thus supporting the use of this procedure to treat painful partial meniscus loss.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.

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.

Polylactic acid (PLA) controlled delivery carriers for biomedical applications

Polylactic acid (PLA) and its copolymers have a long history of safety in humans and an extensive range of applications. PLA is biocompatible, biodegradable by hydrolysis and enzymatic activity, has a large range of mechanical and physical properties that can be engineered appropriately to suit multiple applications, and has low immunogenicity. Formulations containing PLA have also been Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for multiple applications making PLA suitable for expedited clinical translatability. These biomaterials can be fashioned into sutures, scaffolds, cell carriers, drug delivery systems, and a myriad of fabrications. PLA has been the focus of a multitude of preclinical and clinical testing. Three-dimensional printing has expanded the possibilities of biomedical engineering and has enabled the fabrication of a myriad of platforms for an extensive variety of applications. PLA has been widely used as temporary extracellular matrices in tissue engineering. At the other end of the spectrum, PLA's application as drug-loaded nanoparticle drug carriers, such as liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles, dendrimers, and micelles, can encapsulate otherwise toxic hydrophobic anti-tumor drugs and evade systemic toxicities. The clinical translation of these technologies from preclinical experimental settings is an ever-evolving field with incremental advancements. In this review, some of the biomedical applications of PLA and its copolymers are highlighted and briefly summarized.

Pullout repair of a medial meniscus posterior root tear using a FasT-Fix® all-inside suture technique

A medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) may increase the tibiofemoral contact pressure by decreasing the tibiofemoral contact area. Meniscal dysfunction induced by posterior root injury may lead to the development of osteoarthritic knees. Repair of a MMPRT can restore medial meniscus (MM) function and prevent knee osteoarthritis progression. Several surgical procedures have been reported for treating a MMPRT. However, these procedures are associated with several technical difficulties. Here, we describe a technique to stabilize a torn MM posterior root using the FasT-Fix^® all-inside meniscal suture device and a new aiming device. The uncut free-end of the FasT-Fix^® suture can be used as a thread for transtibial pullout repair. Our procedure might help overcome the technical difficulties in arthroscopic treatment of a MMPRT.

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.

Surgical interventions for meniscal tears: a closer look at the evidence

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes of various surgical treatments for meniscal injuries including (1) total and partial meniscectomy; (2) meniscectomy and meniscal repair; (3) meniscectomy and meniscal transplantation; (4) open and arthroscopic meniscectomy and (5) various different repair techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Register, Cochrane Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for all (quasi) randomized controlled clinical trials comparing various surgical techniques for meniscal injuries. Primary outcomes of interest included patient-reported outcomes scores, return to pre-injury activity level, level of sports participation and persistence of pain using the visual analogue score. Where possible, data were pooled and a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included, involving a combined 904 subjects, 330 patients underwent a meniscal repair, 402 meniscectomy and 160 a collagen meniscal implant. The only surgical treatments that were compared in homogeneous fashion across more than one study were the arrow and inside-out technique, which showed no difference for re-tear or complication rate. Strong evidence-based recommendations regarding the other surgical treatments that were compared could not be made.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis illustrates the lack of level I evidence to guide the surgical management of meniscal tears.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I meta-analysis.