Meniscus Repair Does Not Result in an Inferior Short-term Outcome Compared With Meniscus Resection: An Analysis of 5,378 Patients With Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

The Addition of the Gracilis Tendon to a Semitendinosus Tendon Autograft Is Not Associated With Knee Muscle Strength, Subjective Knee Function, or Revision Surgery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare isokinetic knee muscle (extension and flexion) strength, single-leg hop (SLH) test performance, anterior knee laxity, subjective knee function, and the 2-year revision surgery risk between patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with semitendinosus tendon (ST) autografts and patients who underwent ACLR with ST and gracilis tendon (ST-G) autografts.

METHODS

We identified patients aged 16 years or older who underwent primary ACLR with hamstring tendon autografts at our institution from January 2005 to December 2020 and had no associated ligament injuries. Isokinetic knee muscle strength and SLH test performance were assessed 6 months postoperatively. Anterior knee laxity (KT-1000 arthrometer, 134 N) was assessed preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Patients who underwent revision ACLR at any institution in Sweden within 2 years of primary surgery were identified through the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry.

RESULTS

A total of 6,974 patients (5,479 with ST and 1,495 with ST-G) were included. There were no significant differences in extension and flexion strength or SLH test performance between the groups. Preoperatively, there was no significant difference in knee laxity between the ST and ST-G groups. Postoperatively, the ST-G group had significantly increased mean side-to-side (STS) laxity (2.1 ± 2.3 mm vs 1.7 ± 2.2 mm, P < .001) and showed a trend toward increased STS laxity according to the International Knee Documentation Committee form, with significantly fewer patients with STS laxity of 2 mm or less (58.4% vs 65.8%) and significantly more patients with STS laxity between 3 and 5 mm (35.0% vs 29.9%) or greater than 5 mm (6.6% vs 4.3%) (P < .001). The only significant difference in subjective knee function was for the KOOS Quality of Life subscale score in favor of the ST group preoperatively (37.3 ± 21.4 vs 35.1 ± 19.9, P = .001). No other significant differences between the groups were found preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively for any of the KOOS subscales. The overall revision ACLR rate within 2 years of primary surgery was 2.0% (138 of 6,974 patients). The revision ACLR risk in the ST-G group (1.7%, 25 of 1,495 patients) was not significantly different from that in the ST group (2.1%, 113 of 5,479 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.24; P = .32).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of the gracilis tendon to an ST autograft was not associated with knee muscle strength, SLH test performance, subjective knee function, or the risk of revision surgery after ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

A High Grade of Postoperative Knee Laxity Is Associated With an Increased Hazard of Revision Surgery: A Cohort Study of 4697 Patients With Primary ACL Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There is still debate regarding the association between arthrometric knee laxity measurements and subjective knee outcome and revision surgery after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

PURPOSE

To assess whether arthrometric knee laxity (measured with the KT-1000 arthrometer) 6 months after primary ACLR was associated with the 1-, 2-, and 5-year subjective knee outcomes or revision ACLR at a 5-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study, Level of evidence 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary ACLR with a hamstring tendon autograft at the authors' institution between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2017, with no concomitant ligamentous injuries, were identified. Anterior knee laxity (KT-1000 arthrometer, 134 N) was assessed 6 months postoperatively. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively. Patients who underwent revision ACLR at any institution in the country within 5 years of primary surgery were identified through the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry.

RESULTS

A total of 4697 patients (54.3% male) with available KT-1000 arthrometer measurements were included (normal: side-to-side [STS] ≤2 mm, 3015 [64.2%]; nearly normal: STS 3-5 mm, 1446 [30.8%]; abnormal: STS >5 mm, 236 [5.0%]). The only significant difference in subjective knee outcome between the groups was for the KOOS Symptoms subscale at the 1-year follow-up (STS ≤2 mm, 79.9 ± 16.2; STS 3-5 mm, 82.5 ± 14.8; STS >5 mm, 85.1 ± 14.2; P < .001). No other significant differences between the groups were found preoperatively or at 1, 2, or 5 years postoperatively for any of the KOOS subscales. The hazard for revision ACLR within 5 years of the primary surgery was significantly higher for the groups with an STS of 3 to 5 mm (6.6%; 95/1446) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.07-1.87; P = .01) and an STS >5 mm (11.4%; 27/236) (HR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.69-4.03; P < .001) compared with the group with an STS ≤2 mm (3.8%; 116/3015).

CONCLUSION

A high grade of postoperative knee laxity (STS 3-5 mm and STS >5 mm) 6 months after primary ACLR was associated with an increased hazard of revision ACLR within 5 years, but it was not associated with an inferior subjective knee outcome.

Comparison of Functional Outcomes after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Meniscal Repair for Unstable versus Stable Meniscal Tears

This study aimed to compare functional outcomes including knee muscle strength in the quadriceps and hamstrings, and proprioception, assessed through dynamic postural stability (overall stability index [OSI]) and self-reported outcomes in the operated and non-operated knees between anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with meniscal repair for unstable (root and radial tears) and stable (longitudinal, horizontal, and bucket handle tears) meniscal tears. A total of 76 patients were randomly selected (41 with ACLR with meniscal repair for unstable meniscal tears and 35 with ACLR with meniscal repair for stable meniscal tears) at three different time points (preoperative, 6 months, and 12 months). Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to investigate the differences in outcomes for between-subject and within-subject factors. In the operated knees, there were no significant differences for functional outcomes between the two groups (all p > 0.05). In the non-operated knees, a significant difference was observed for the OSI between the two groups, which was significantly higher in ACLR with meniscal repair for unstable meniscal tears than for stable meniscal tears at 6 months (p < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that age (p = 0.027), preoperative OSI in the operated knees (p = 0.005), and postoperative OSI in the operated knees at 6 months (p = 0.002) were significant and independent predictors for OSI in the non-operated knees at 6 months postoperatively. Therefore, while no differences were observed in functional outcomes between the two groups in the operated knees, dynamic postural stability was poorer at 6 months postoperatively in the non-operated knees of patients with ACLR with meniscal repair for unstable meniscal tears. Furthermore, a significant correlation was observed between preoperative/postoperative dynamic postural stability in the operated knees and postoperative dynamic postural stability in the non-operated knees. Hence, we recommend incorporating balance exercises for both knees in post-surgical rehabilitation, particularly for patients with unstable meniscal tears.

Influence of Graft Type and Meniscal Involvement on Short-Term Outcomes Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

CONTEXT

The purpose of this study was to compare short-term clinical outcomes between meniscus procedures performed with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), ACLR (ACLR-only), ACLR with meniscectomy/resection (ACLR-resect), and ACLR with meniscal repair (ACLR-repair) for bone patellar tendon bone grafts (BPTB) and hamstring tendon grafts, separately.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a controlled laboratory setting as part of a large point-of-care collaborative research program.

METHODS

This study included 314 participants (168 females; mean [SD]: age, 19.7 [4.8]) with primary unilateral ACLR with a BPTB or hamstring tendon. Patients were divided into 3 groups depending on meniscal procedure (ACLR-only, ACLR-resect, and ACLR-repair). Postsurgical testing included: isokinetic assessment of knee extension and flexion, single-leg hop tests, and patient-reported outcomes. Multivariate analysis of covariance compared differences between meniscal procedures on the battery of tests, and for each statistically significant variable an analysis of covariance assessed the effect of meniscal procedure within each graft type. Chi-square analysis assessed the influence of meniscal procedure on tests' pass rates defined as 90% of limb symmetry index.

RESULTS

BPTB: ACLR-only had greater hamstring strength than ACLR-resect (P = .05) and ACLR-repair (P = .005). ACLR-only had the highest proportion of participants to pass the hamstring strength test (P = .02). Hamstring tendon: ACLR-only (P = .03) and ACLR-resect (P = .003) had higher International Knee Documentation Committee scale scores than ACLR-repair. There was a significant difference in the proportion of participants who scored >90% limb symmetry index on the timed hop test (P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of meniscal repair on clinical outcomes is dependent on the graft choice. Following an ACLR with BPTB and a meniscal procedure, hamstring function should be more closely monitored for optimal short-term recovery.

Short-term outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with or without lateral tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) alone, ACLR with lateral tenodesis, and ACL and ALL reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of prospectively collected data on all ACL procedures was performed at Aspetar Specialized Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital between January 2020 and January 2021. Patients were treated with ACLR alone, ACLR with lateral tenodesis, or ACLR with ALL reconstruction. The primary outcome was the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (sIKDC) score. The secondary outcomes were the ACL Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scores, pivot shift grade, subjective knee stability, and subjective pain on activity.

RESULTS

A total of 100 cases were included. The most common technique was ACLR with lateral tenodesis (42%), followed by ACLR alone (38%) and ACL with ALL reconstruction (20%). The mean age was 28.15 years (15-60), and 94% of the patients were males. Meniscal procedures were more frequent in the ACLR alone group (65.8%). There was no association between subjective stability, sIKDC, ACL-RSI, and pivot shift grade and the three ACLR techniques while adjusting for age, sex, and concomitant meniscus procedures at six weeks, 12 weeks, six months, and nine months. However, there was a significant decrease in postoperative flexion in the ACL and ALL reconstruction group by a mean of 22° (95% CI - 40.7 - 3.4; P = 0.02) at 6 weeks compared to ACLR alone, which was not evident on later follow-ups.

CONCLUSION

ACLR with/without lateral augmentation procedures yields similar subjective IKDC, ACL-RSI, pivot shift grade, and subjective knee instability at short-term follow-up. Therefore, lateral extra-articular augmentation procedures are safe to be performed.

Arthroscopy Journal: Reflections on 2023 and Auld Lang Syne

Auld lang syne; times long past. We were unsuspecting of the coming pandemic. Things changed. COVID-19 impacted each of us, our families, our patients, our medical practices, and our daily lives. The year 2020 was one of cancellation and loss; 2021 and 2022 were years of adaptation, caution, and continued loss. Finally, 2023 began a time of recovery; while COVID-19 is still with us, the pandemic has been declared ended, and we emerge with gratitude. We slowly removed our masks and rediscovered the vitality of meeting face-to-face. And throughout, Arthroscopy has continued to develop, including new journals; special issues on rehabilitation, biologics, and diversity as they relate to musculoskeletal care; collaboration with the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maintenance of Certification, Web-Based Longitudinal Assessment Pathway; Arthroscopy Techniques; Infographics; Visual Abstracts; and Podcasts. At year end, we extend special thanks to editors whose terms have expired, our team and leaders, our reviewers, our authors and readers, and our patients who offer us their trust and an opportunity to serve.

Differences in postoperative knee function based on concomitant treatment of lateral meniscal injury in the setting of primary ACL reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Concomitant lateral meniscal (LM) injuries are common in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. However, the effect of addressing these injuries with various treatment methods during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2-, 5-, and 10-years after isolated primary ACLR to primary ACLR with various treatment methods to address concomitant LM injury.

METHODS

This study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients ≥ 15 years with data on postoperative KOOS who underwent primary ACLR between the years 2005 and 2018 were included in this study. The study population was divided into five groups: 1) Isolated ACLR, 2) ACLR + LM repair, 3) ACLR + LM resection, 4) ACLR + LM injury left in situ, and 5) ACLR + LM repair + LM resection. Patients with concomitant medial meniscal or other surgically treated ligament injuries were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 31,819 included patients, 24% had LM injury. After post hoc comparisons, significantly lower scores were found for the KOOS Symptoms subscale in ACLR + LM repair group compared to isolated ACLR (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.0097) and ACLR + LM injury left in situ groups (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.041) at 2-year follow-up. However, at 10-year follow-up, no differences were found between ACLR + LM repair and isolated ACLR, but ACLR + LM resection resulted in significantly lower KOOS Symptoms scores compared to isolated ACLR (80.4 vs 82.3, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that LM injury during ACLR is associated with lower KOOS scores, particularly in the Symptoms subscale, at short- and long-term follow-up. However, this finding falls below minimal clinical important difference and therefore may not be clinically relevant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Meniscal repair at the time of primary ACLR does not negatively influence short term knee stability, graft rupture rates, or patient-reported outcome measures: the STABILITY experience

PURPOSE

To assess how meniscal repair and excision impact short term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), knee stability, and early graft rupture rates following primary hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with or without lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in a group of young active patients where meniscal repair is commonly advocated.

METHODS

Six hundred and eighteen patients under 25 years of age at high-risk of graft failure following ACLR were recruited to the Stability 1 study. Multivariable regression models were developed to identify statistically and clinically significant surgical and demographic predictors of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC), ACL Quality of Life Questionnaire (ACL-QOL) and Marx Activity Rating Scale (MARS) scores. Chi-Square tests of independence were used to explore the association between meniscal status (torn, not torn), meniscal treatment (excision or repair), graft rupture, and rotatory knee laxity.

RESULTS

Medial meniscus repair was associated with worse outcomes on the KOOS (β = -1.32, 95% CI: -1.57 to -1.10, p = 0.003), IKDC (β = -1.66, 95% CI: -1.53 to -1.02, p = 0.031) and ACL-QOL (β = -1.25, 95% CI: -1.61 to 1.02, p = n.s.). However, these associations indicated small, clinically insignificant changes based on reported measures of clinical relevance. Other important predictors of post-operative PROMs included age, sex, and baseline scores. Medial meniscus excision and lateral meniscus treatment (repair or excision) did not have an important influence on PROMs. There was no significant association between meniscal treatment and graft rupture or rotatory knee laxity.

CONCLUSION

While repairing the medial meniscus may result in a small reduction in PROM scores at two-year follow-up, these differences are not likely to be important to patients or clinicians. Any surgical morbidity associated with meniscal repair appears negligible in terms of PROMs. Meniscal repair does not affect rotatory laxity or graft failure rates in the short term. Therefore, meniscal repair should likely be maintained as the standard of care for concomitant meniscal tears with ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

The crevice sign: a new indicator of meniscal instability in ACL reconstructions

PURPOSE

Meniscus preservation is key in knee surgery. The newly documented crevice sign indicates instability of the medial meniscus in ACL-deficient knees. Once the sign is visualised, it is imperative that the stability of the medial meniscus is assessed and potentially treated. It was hypothesized that there would be a strong correlation between the presence of an unstable medial meniscal tear in patients with the crevice sign in ACL-deficient knees.

METHODS

This was a multicenter prospective study carried out to evaluate the incidence of medial meniscal tears in patients with ACL-deficient knees and their correlation with a crevice sign. All patients (128) who had undergone ACL reconstruction between May 2020 and November 2020 were assessed arthroscopically for meniscal stability and divided in to two groups: stable (n = 84) and unstable (n = 44). Thereafter, the presence of the crevice sign was determined in each case.

RESULTS

The populations were comparable in terms of sex and age (Table 1). Fisher's exact test showed a significant association between the presence of the crevice sign and the instability of the medial meniscus (p < 0.001). Descriptive statistics suggest that the presence of crevice sign was associated more frequently to MM instability (38.6% vs 1.2%; p < 0.001). The specificity of this test was 98.8% and its sensitivity was 38.6%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 94.4% and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 75.5%. Table 1 Descriptions and comparisons of internal meniscus instability of patients by presence of crevice sign Internal meniscus instability (N = 44) Internal meniscus stability (N = 84) Total (N = 128) Gender  N 44 84 128   Male 33 (75.0) 58 (69.0) 91 (71.1)   Female 11 (25.0) 26 (31.0) 37 (28.9) Fisher's exact test (n.s.) Age (years)  N 44 84 128   Mean (ET) 28.6 (9.4) 30.1 (10.2) 29.6 (9.9)   Median (IIQ) 26.5 (22.0;34.5) 27.0 (22.5;37.0) 27.0 (22.0;36.0)   [Min-Max] [14-54] [14-52] [14-54] Wilcoxon test bilateral (n.s.) Crevice sign  N 44 84 128   Absent 27 (61.4) 83 (98.8) 110 (85.9)   Present 17 (38.6) 1 (1.2) 18 (14.1) Fisher's exact test p < 0.001 CONCLUSION: The hypothesis was confirmed since medial meniscal instability was strongly correlated with the existence of the crevice sign and showed high specificity and PPV.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Editorial Commentary: Biologic Augmentation of Meniscus Repair Is Complex

In the setting of biological augmentation for meniscus repair, it is extremely important to evaluate all aspects, including effectiveness, costs, potential risks, benefits, and limitations. It seems that everything matters in healing: the aspirate source of the bioactive agents, cell content, presence of stem cells and their type, growth factors, cytokines, biomechanical scaffold, and the quality of the tissue. There are several differences among mesenchymal, adipose, and peripheral blood stem cells, with the cell origin affecting the differentiation potential towards bone, cartilage and ligament. Moreover, different aspirate sources and fibrin clots have different content in cells, growth factors, and cytokines. In this equation, it is not as simple as the more the better. Different doses of growth factors may have different effects in the different cell types. And as this was not complicated enough, synergistic phenomena between cells and between growth factors can play a huge role. Add to that the role of the biomechanical environment, the proper timing of the healing phases and the inherent patient characteristics. There is very, very much to learn, and finally, we acknowledge that not all menisci repairs can always heal.

Different injury patterns exist among patients undergoing operative treatment of isolated PCL, combined PCL/ACL, and isolated ACL injuries: a study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry

PURPOSE

To compare demographic characteristics and concomitant injury patterns in patients undergoing primary isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCL-R) and combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (PCL-R/ACL-R) with isolated ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) as a reference using data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry (SNKLR).

METHODS

This cohort study based on the SNKLR comprised patients undergoing either PCL-R, ACL-R, or combined PCL-R/ACL-R between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2019 in Sweden. Demographic and surgery-related data with regards to injury mechanism, concomitant intraarticular lesions and their treatment, neurovascular damage, and concomitant ligamentous injuries were extracted. Exclusion criteria included concomitant fractures of the femur, fibula, patella or tibia, and quadriceps or patellar tendon injury.

RESULTS

A total of 45,564 patients were included in this study. Isolated PCL-R, combined PCL-R/ACL-R, and isolated ACL-R were performed in 192 (0.4%), 203 (0.5%) and 45,169 (99.1%) patients, respectively. Sports were identified as the cause of 64% of PCL-Rs, 54% of PCL-R/ACL-Rs, and 89% of ACL-Rs, while a traffic-related mechanism was identified in 20% of PCL-Rs, 27% of PCL-R/ACL-Rs and 2% of ACL-Rs. Meniscus injury prevalence was 45% in ACL-Rs, 31% in PCL-R/ACL-Rs and 16% in isolated PCL-Rs (p < 0.001). Cartilage injuries were more common in PCL-R (37%) and PCL-R/ACL-R patients (40%) compared to ACL-R patients (26%, p < 0.001). Concomitant knee ligament injury was identified in 28-44% of PCL-R/ACL-R patients. Neurovascular injuries were present in 9% of PCL-R/ACL-Rs, 1% of PCL-Rs, and 0.3% of ACL-Rs (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Differences in injury mechanisms among patient groups confirm that operatively treated PCL tears are frequently caused by both traffic and sports. Cartilage and ligament injuries were more frequent in patients with PCL-R compared to ACL-R. Consequently, combined PCL and ACL tears should raise suspicion for concomitant knee lesions with clinical relevance during the operative treatment of these complex injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Failed meniscal repair increases the risk for osteoarthritis and poor knee function at an average of 9 years follow-up

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of meniscal repair on OA in the knee joint and patient-related outcomes.

METHODS

Three-hundred and sixteen meniscal repairs performed between 1999 and 2011 were analysed. Patient-related outcome measures were assessed through mailed questionnaires including KOOS, Lysholm score and Tegner activity level. Patients answering the questionnaires were encouraged to perform a radiographic evaluation with Rosenberg views, assessed according to Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification. The primary endpoint was to determine the effect of meniscal repair on the development of radiographic OA defined as a KL grade 2 or more.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up time was 9.3 years (SD 3.6), 162 (51%) patients answered the questionnaires, and 86 patients completed the X-ray. The odds ratio for OA with a failed meniscus repair was 5.1 (p = 0.007) adjusted for gender and age at time of follow-up. KOOS showed a clinically important difference in the sport and recreation subscale (p = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

There was an increased risk for OA in the affected compartment with a failed meniscus fixation. This supports the fact that the meniscus is an important protector of the cartilage in the knee. The meniscus injury affects the long-term health-related quality of life according to KOOS and in light of this study we recommend repair of a torn meniscus whenever possible.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

All-Cause Failure Rates Increase With Time Following Meniscal Repair Despite Favorable Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to perform a meta-analysis of studies reporting meniscus repair outcomes. Pooled analyses of such studies will provide an accurate estimate of the outcomes that can be expected following meniscal repair at various postoperative time points.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of meniscal repair failure (defined as persistent symptoms, lack of healing on magnetic resonance imaging or revision surgery) and other clinical outcomes was performed following meniscal repair. Patients included had traumatic, nondegenerative meniscal tears, were skeletally mature, and had specific time-points after surgery. Repairs included were performed either in isolation, or with concomitant ACL reconstruction. Because of the inherent heterogeneity of single-arm meta-analyses, pooled analyses were performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Rates of all-cause meniscal repair failure was pooled to be 12% at 0-1 years (95% CI: .09-.16), 15% at 2-3 years (95% CI: .11-.20), and 19% at 4-6 years (95% CI: .13-.24). Sensitivity analysis for studies performing meniscal repair entirely on patients with concomitant ACL reconstruction (ACLR) showed comparable rates of failure at similar time intervals. Development of osteoarthritis, in patients with knees previously free from articular pathologies, was 4% at 2-3 years (95% CI: .02-.07), and 10% at 4-6 years (95% CI: .03-.25).

CONCLUSION

Meniscus repair for traumatic injuries have an all-cause failure rate that increases from 12% to 19% through a time period ranging from 1-6 years following surgery. The failure rates were comparable for patients with meniscal repairs performed with concomitant ACLRs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; Systematic Review of Level II-IV Studies.

Medialer und lateraler Meniskuskorbhenkelriss mit vorderer Kreuzbandruptur

Diese Kasuistik beschreibt den Fall und die Rekonstruktion einer kombinierten medialen und lateralen Korbhenkelläsion des Meniskus mit vorderer Kreuzbandruptur. Als Technik wurde eine Kombination aus Outside-in- und All-inside-Nahttechniken sowie ein ipsilateraler vierfacher Hamstring-Autograft in All-inside-Technik angewendet. Eine 47-jährige Patientin zog sich im Rahmen eines Fahrradsturzes ein Außenrotations-Valgusstress-Trauma des linken Kniegelenks zu. In der Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) zeigte sich das für die Kombinationsverletzung typische Vierfach-Zeichen, welches auch als Jack-and-Jill-Läsion beschrieben wird. Die Rekonstruktion erfolgte 2 Wochen nach dem Unfall. Eine postoperative Arthrofibrose mit limitierter Knieflexion machte 4 Monate nach initialer Operation eine Revisionsarthroskopie mit Arthrolyse notwendig. Sechs Wochen nach Arthrolyse war die Patientin weiterhin asymptomatisch und erreichte eine aktive Knieflexion von 130°. Die Intention dieser Kasuistik war die Beschreibung dieser seltenen aber komplexen Knieverletzung außerhalb des professionellen Sportbereichs sowie deren operative Versorgung. Die klinischen und radiologischen Verlaufskontrollen zeigten eine regelrechte Rekonstruktion und Reorganisation des medialen und lateralen Meniskus sowie des vorderen Kreuzbands bei freiem und schmerzlosem Bewegungsumfang des Kniegelenks.

Effect of Tibial Tunnel Placement Using the Lateral Meniscus as a Landmark on Clinical Outcomes of Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear if use of the lateral meniscus anterior horn (LMAH) as a landmark will produce consistent tunnel positions in the anteroposterior (AP) distance across the tibial plateau.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the AP location of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction tibial tunnels utilizing the LMAH as an intra-articular landmark and to examine how tunnel placement affects knee stability and clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of 98 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with quadrupled hamstring tendon autografts between March 2013 and June 2017. Patients with unilateral ACL injuries and a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included in the study. All guide pins for the tibial tunnel were placed using the posterior border of the LMAH as an intra-articular landmark. Guide pins were evaluated with the Bernard-Hertel grid in the femur and the Stäubli-Rauschning method in the tibia. Patients were divided by the radiographic location of the articular entry point of the guide pin with relation to the anterior 40% of the tibial plateau. Outcomes were evaluated by the Marx Activity Scale and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form. Anterior knee laxity was evaluated using a KT-1000 arthrometer and graded with the objective portion of the IKDC form. Rotational stability was evaluated using the pivot-shift test.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were available for follow-up at a mean 28.6 months. The overall percentage of AP placement of the tibial tunnel was 39.3% ± 3.8% (mean ± SD; range, 31%-47%). Side-to-side difference of anterior knee laxity was significantly lower in the anterior group than the posterior group (1.2 ± 1.1 mm vs 2.5 ± 1.3 mm; P < .001; r = 0.51). The percentage of AP placement of the tibial tunnel demonstrated a positive medium correlation with side-to-side difference of anterior knee laxity as measured by a KT-1000 arthrometer (r = 0.430; P < .001). The anterior group reported significantly better distribution of IKDC grading as compared with the posterior group (26 grade A and 6 grade B vs 15 grade A and 13 grade B; P = .043; V = 0.297). The pivot-shift test results and outcome scores showed no significant differences between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Using the posterior border of the LMAH as an intraoperative landmark yields a wide range of tibial tunnel locations along the tibial plateau, with anterior placement of the tibial tunnel leading toward improved anterior knee stability.

Risk of arthrofibrosis in anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the role of timing and meniscus suture

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction remains controversial. Several studies have shown that early surgery leads to an increased rate of arthrofibrosis and poorer postoperative function. Other studies found no correlation between time of surgery and arthrofibrosis. The influence of simultaneous meniscus treatment is also discussed. Aim of this study was to ascertain whether the timing of surgery and treatment of meniscus influences the occurrence rate of arthrofibrosis.

METHODS

Two hundred and six patients could be included. These were split into two groups. Group 1: surgery within 6 weeks after ACL rupture (n = 68), group 2: surgery after more than 6 weeks (n = 68). In addition, 2 matched groups were created (n = 138 ). Follow-up was 12 months after surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of subsequent arthrofibrosis procedures (arthroscopic arthrolysis). Secondary endpoints were knee function (knee osteoarthritis outcome score: KOOS), knee pain (numeric rating scale: NRS) and patient satisfaction measured on a 5 point Likert scale.

RESULTS

In 6 of the 68 patients in group 1 (8.8%) and 3 of the 138 patients in group 2 (2.2%) a subsequent arthroscopic arthrolysis was performed (OR 4.4). A simultaneous meniscal suture was performed in 58 patients (30 of them in group 1). Five of the six patients with subsequent arthrolysis in group 1 received meniscal repair (OR for arthrolysis 3.4). There was no difference between the groups in terms of knee function (KOOS), pain (NRS) and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The rate of subsequent arthroscopic arthrolysis was higher in the acute surgery group. However, most of these subsequent procedures were associated with meniscal repair at index surgery with a more restrictive rehabilitation protocol than after ACL reconstruction without meniscus repair. This allows the assessment that the meniscal suturing poses an increased risk. Therefore, this allows the conclusion that if using an anatomical surgical technique and considering the signs of inflammation with effusion, pain and movement deficit less than 90° there is no increased risk of arthrofibrosis.

Editorial Commentary: Meniscal Repair-Why Bother?

Whether to repair or resect meniscal tears remains a matter of controversy. In theory, partial meniscectomy increases contact pressure, which may result in progressive and early cartilage degeneration and early osteoarthritis. Meniscal preservation is the preferred treatment option, but only a small percentage of meniscal tears are suitable for repair. Two recent registry studies challenge this approach and suggest that partial meniscectomy has similar clinical outcomes in the short term. Whether these findings can be maintained in the long term remains to be seen.

One sixth of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions may undergo reoperation due to complications or new injuries within 2 years

PURPOSE

To analyse the incidence, types and risk factors for reoperation within 2 years of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

Our clinic registry was used to identify primary ACLRs, performed from 2005 to 2015, and reoperations performed on the ipsilateral knee within 2 years at our institution. Reoperations were identified using procedural codes and analysis of medical records. A logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate risk factors for reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 6030 primary ACLRs were included. A total of 1112 (18.4%) reoperations performed on 1018 (16.9%) primary ACLRs were identified. The most common reoperations were screw removal (n = 282, 4.7%), meniscus procedures (n = 238, 3.9%), cyclops removal/notchplasty (n = 222, 3.7%) and reoperations due to graft rupture (n = 146, 2.4%), including revision ACLR. Age < 30 years (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.37-1.80; P < 0.001), female gender (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.17-1.51; P < 0.001), medial meniscus repair (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.23-1.97; P < 0.001), lateral meniscus resection (OR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07-1.49; P = 0.005) and lateral meniscus repair (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.03-1.85; P = 0.02) at primary ACLR were found to be risk factors for reoperation.

CONCLUSION

One sixth of all primary ACLRs underwent reoperation due to complications or new injuries within 2 years. The most common reoperations were screw removal, meniscus procedures, cyclops removal/notchplasty and reoperations due to graft rupture, including revision ACLR. Younger age (< 30 years), female gender, medial meniscus repair and lateral meniscus resection or repair at primary ACLR were associated with an increased risk of reoperation. This study provides clinicians with important data to inform patients about the short-term reoperation rates, the most common reoperation procedures and risk factors for reoperation after primary ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.