Meniscal Repair Using the Inside-Out Suture Technique

Continuous Meniscal Repair Technique Allows for Shorter Operative Time and Learning Curve Compared With Traditional Vertical Mattress Technique in Controlled Arthroscopic Training in Porcine Model

Purpose

To compare the amount of time used to perform meniscal suturing on a standardized lesion using either a traditional or continuous arthroscopic suturing technique.

Methods

A preclinical study was carried out with 21 medical doctors who underwent training in the 2 modalities of meniscal repair by arthroscopy in an animal model laboratory. Participants performed both types of sutures with a previously standardized lesion. The execution time of the techniques was measured, and an experienced surgeon evaluated the stability of a meniscal tear after the repair. Data were analyzed using a t test for paired samples to calculate the difference between the execution times of the techniques.

Results

The time required to perform the continuous meniscal suture was shorter than that of the traditional suture. After statistical analysis, the time difference between the techniques was significant (mean difference 4:17 ± 5:30 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 1:46-6:46 minutes). Surgeons took less time than residents for the traditional suture (P = .036), but the times were similar for the continuous suture. This suggests that experience level has a greater effect on the time needed for the traditional suture than for the continuous suture.

Conclusions

The continuous suture technique was performed in a shorter time compared with the traditional suture technique in a porcine model.

Clinical Relevance

The results of this preclinical study suggest that the continuous vertical inside-out meniscal suture technique can enhance surgical procedures for longitudinal tears requiring ≥4 stitches, offering a faster and more intuitive learning curve compared with the traditional inside-out suture technique.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

The popularization of all-inside (AI) meniscal repair devices has led to a shift away from the historical gold standard of inside-out (IO) meniscal repair without comparative studies to support the change.

PURPOSE

To compare the failure rate and time to failure of AI and IO meniscal repair performed in elite athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all professional and national- and international-level amateur athletes who underwent meniscal repair, with a minimum of 2-year follow-up between January 2013 and September 2019. Meniscal repair was classified as AI or IO depending on the surgical technique performed. Treatment failure was defined as patients having to undergo subsequent surgery to address a persistent meniscal tear after repair. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine if meniscal repair failure rates differed by the location and technique of meniscal repair. Models were controlled for known risk factors such as age, sex, sport, and concurrent cruciate ligament reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 192 (135 lateral and 57 medial) meniscal repairs were performed in elite athletes during the study period. Overall, 41 (21%) meniscal repairs met the criteria for failure. Medial meniscal tears repaired with the AI technique failed at a significantly higher rate (18/31 [58%]) than medial meniscal tears repaired with the IO technique (6/26 [23%]) or lateral meniscal tears repaired with the AI (9/76 [12%]) or IO (8/59 [14%]) technique (P < .001). Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed that a medial meniscal tear repaired with the AI technique had an almost 8 times greater hazard of failure than a lateral meniscal tear repaired with the AI technique (P < .001). At 1 year postoperatively, 8% of lateral meniscal repairs had failed (regardless of technique), while medial meniscal tears failed at a rate of 16% with the IO technique and 42% with the AI technique. By 2 years, 53% of medial meniscal tears repaired with the AI technique had failed, and by 5 years, 63% had failed.

CONCLUSION

AI repair of medial meniscal tears led to a higher rate of failure than IO repair of medial or lateral meniscal tears in elite athletes. Medial meniscal repair failed at a higher rate than lateral meniscal repair.

Failure Rates of Repaired Bucket-Handle Tears of the Medial Meniscus Concomitant With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cohort Study of 253 Patients From the SANTI Study Group With a Mean Follow-up of 94 Months

BACKGROUND

Failure rates of repaired bucket-handle medial meniscal tears (BHMMTs) concomitant with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are as high as 20%. The outcomes of posteromedial portal suture hook repair have not been compared with all-inside repair techniques for this subtype of meniscal lesion.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and failure rates of patients who underwent BHMMT repair concomitant with ACLR using an all-inside technique, suture hook + all-inside technique, or suture hook + outside-in technique. It was hypothesized that no significant differences in failure rates would be found between the groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with a BHMMT who underwent meniscal repair during primary ACLR and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients were grouped based on the meniscal repair technique used: all-inside repair, suture hook + all-inside repair, or suture hook + outside-in repair. At the end of the study period, secondary medial meniscectomy rates were determined.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 253 patients who underwent repair of a BHMMT with concomitant ACLR with a mean follow-up of 94.0 ± 47.6 months. A total of 114 patients (45.1%) underwent all-inside repair, 61 patients (24.1%) underwent suture hook + all-inside repair, and 78 patients (30.8%) underwent suture hook + outside-in repair. Overall, there were 36 failures. The failure rates were 20.2%, 14.8%, and 5.1%, respectively (P = .0135). All-inside repairs were >4 times more likely to fail than suture hook + outside-in repairs (hazard ratio [HR], 4.103; 95% CI, 1.369-12.296; P = .0117). Failure was also 3 times higher (HR, 2.943; 95% CI, 1.224-7.075; P = .0159) for patients <30 years of age compared with those aged ≥30 years. An additional anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) was also found to reduce the failure rate of repaired BHMMTs concomitant with ACLR.

CONCLUSION

Combined suture hook + outside-in repair of BHMMTs resulted in significantly fewer failures than all other techniques. Furthermore, age <30 years and no additional ALLR were associated with higher failure rates.

Mid-term evaluation of clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic medial longitudinal and bucket-handle meniscus repair

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes following the arthroscopic medial meniscal repair.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients (42 males, 8 females; mean age: 32.9±7.6 years; range, 17 to 48 years) who underwent arthroscopic repair for longitudinal and bucket-handle medial meniscal tears between March 2005 and October 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups as those having a longitudinal tear (patient group, n=31) and having a bucket-handle tear (control group, n=19). Preoperative and final follow-up functional outcomes were evaluated using the Lysholm Knee Score (LKS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) score, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 61.7±22.8 (range, 36 to 110) months. The mean preoperative LKS, IKDC score, TAS, and KOOS scores were significantly improved at the final postoperative follow-up (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in functional outcome scores between longitudinal and bucket-handle repairs (p>0.05), and isolated repairs and concomitant meniscal repair and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic meniscal repair provides similar mid-term functional and clinical outcomes for longitudinal and bucket-handle medial meniscal tears. Concomitant meniscal repair does not seem to affect meniscal healing.

Changes in Matrix Components in the Developing Human Meniscus

BACKGROUND

Treatment of meniscal tears is necessary to maintain the long-term health of the knee joint. Morphological elements, particularly vascularity, that play an important role in meniscal healing are known to change during skeletal development.

PURPOSE

To quantitatively evaluate meniscal vascularity, cellularity, collagen, and proteoglycan content by age and location during skeletal development.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive laboratory study.

METHODS

Medial and lateral menisci from 14 male and 7 female cadavers aged 1 month to 11 years were collected and evaluated. For each meniscus, histologic and immunohistologic techniques were used to establish the ratio of the area of proteoglycan (safranin O) positivity to the total area (proteoglycan ratio), collagen type I and type II immunostaining positivity, number of blood vessels, and cell density. These features were evaluated over the entire meniscus and also separately in 5 circumferential segments: anterior root, anterior horn, body, posterior horn, and posterior root. Additionally, cell density and number of blood vessels were examined in 3 radial regions: inner, middle, and periphery.

RESULTS

Age was associated with a decrease in meniscal vessel count and cell density, while the proteoglycan ratio increased with skeletal maturity. Differences in vessel counts, cellular density, and proteoglycan ratio in different anatomic segments as well as in the inner, middle, and peripheral regions of the developing menisci were also observed. Collagen immunostaining results were inconsistent and not analyzed.

CONCLUSION

The cellularity and vascularity of the developing meniscus decrease with age and the proteoglycan content increases with age. All of these parameters are influenced by location within the meniscus.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Age and location differences in meniscal morphology, particularly in the number of blood vessels, are expected to influence meniscal healing.

Augmentation of Meniscal Repair With Platelet-Rich Plasma: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

Background:

The effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for meniscal repair (MR) is unclear, as current evidence is limited to small, mostly nonrandomized studies.

Purpose:

To systematically review the literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MR with PRP augmentation.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies (level of evidence 1-3) that compared the clinical efficacy of MR performed with versus without PRP. The search phrase used was platelet-rich plasma meniscus. Patients were assessed based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Lysholm score, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and treatment failure.

Results:

We identified 6 studies (2 studies with level 1 evidence; 4 studies with level 3 evidence) that met inclusion criteria, for a total of 309 patients undergoing MR with PRP (mean age, 31.9 years) and 445 patients without PRP augmentation (mean age, 29.6 years). The mean follow-up was 32.8 months (range, 12-72 months). Overall, 17.0% of PRP patients experienced MR failure compared with 22.1% of non-PRP patients. No differences in VAS, Lysholm, or subjective IKDC scores were found between groups except in 1 study, in which postoperative subjective IKDC scores were significantly better in the PRP group (P < .01). Another study found significantly better postoperative WOMAC scores among PRP patients, and 2 studies found significantly better KOOS subscores among PRP patients.

Conclusion:

There are a limited number of high-quality studies comparing outcomes and healing rates between patients undergoing MR with versus without PRP augmentation. Based on the available evidence, patients undergoing MR with PRP augmentation experience similar clinical outcomes at midterm follow-up when compared with conventional MR, and additional studies are needed to determine the efficacy of MR augmented with PRP.

Arthroscopically Repaired Bucket-Handle Meniscus Tears: Patient Demographics, Postoperative Outcomes, and a Comparison of Success and Failure Cases

OBJECTIVE

To define patient demographics, preoperative, and intraoperative surgical variables associated with successful or failed repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears.

DESIGN

All patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a bucket-handle meniscus tear at a single institution between May 2011 and July 2016 with minimum 6-month follow-up were retrospectively identified. Patient demographic, preoperative (including imaging), and operative variables were collected and evaluated. A Kaplan-Meier curve was generated to demonstrate meniscus repair survivorship.

RESULTS

In total, 75 patients (78 knees) with an average age of 26.53 ± 10.67 years met inclusion criteria. The average follow-up was 23.41 ± 16.43 months. Fifteen knees (19.2%) suffered re-tear of the repaired meniscus at an average 12.24 ± 9.50 months postoperatively. Survival analysis demonstrated 93.6% survival at 6 months, 84.6% survival at 1 year, 78.4% survival at 2 years, and 69.9% survival at 3 years. There was significant improvement from baseline to time of final follow-up in all patient-reported outcome (P < 0.05) except Marx score (P = 0.933) and SF-12 Mental Subscale (P = 0.807). The absence of other knee pathology (including ligament tear, contralateral compartment meniscal tear, or cartilage lesions) noted intraoperatively was the only variable significantly associated with repair failure (P = 0.024). Concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (vs. no concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction) trended toward significance (P = 0.059) as a factor associated with successful repair.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of the absence of other knee pathology (including ligament tear, contralateral compartment meniscal tear, or cartilage lesions) noted intraoperatively, no other variables were significantly associated with re-tear. The results are relatively durable with 84.6% survival at 1 year. Surgeons should attempt meniscal repair when presented with a bucket-handle tear.

An arthroscopic repair technique for meniscal tear using a needle and suture: outside-in transfer all-inside repair

BACKGROUND

At present, most repair techniques for meniscal tears fix the meniscus directly over the capsule. This changes the normal anatomy and biomechanics and limits the activity of the meniscus during motion. We introduce an arthroscopic repair technique by suturing the true meniscus tissue without the capsule and subcutaneous tissue.

METHODS

After confirmation of a tear, a custom-designed meniscal repair needle first penetrates percutaneously, crossing the capsular portion and the torn meniscus, and exits from the femoral surface of one side of the torn meniscus. Then a No. 2 PDS suture is passed through the needle and retrieved through the arthroscopy portal. Next, the needle is withdrawn to the synovial margin of the meniscus and is reinserted, exiting the femoral surface of the other side of the torn meniscus. The suture is pulled out through the same portal with a grasper. Finally, arthroscopic knotting is performed.

RESULTS

We had 149 cases of meniscal tears repaired with this outside-in transfer all-inside technique since July 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

It is a simple, minimally invasive, and economical procedure that is appropriate for most parts of the meniscus except the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus, and it can be used to fix torn meniscus tissue firmly while also preserving the inherent activity of the meniscus.

Clinical Outcomes of Inside-Out Meniscal Repair According to Anatomic Zone of the Meniscal Tear

Background

There is significant discrepancy in the reported vascularity within the meniscus, and a progressively diminishing blood supply may indicate a differential healing capacity of tears that is dependent on the affected meniscal zone.

Purpose

To examine the outcomes after inside-out meniscal repair in all 3 meniscal vascularity zones.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Patients were included if they underwent inside-out meniscal repair by a single surgeon between 2010 and 2014 and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the meniscal tear location (red-red, red-white, and white-white zones) as determined during an intraoperative assessment. Patient-reported outcome scores were obtained at final follow-up.

Results

A total of 173 patients (mean age, 33.6 ± 14.3 years) were included, with a mean follow-up of 2.9 ± 0.9 years. All patients demonstrated significant improvements with inside-out meniscal repair from preoperatively to postoperatively, regardless of the meniscal tear location. Patients who underwent meniscal repair in the red-red and red-white zones had significantly increased postoperative Tegner, Lysholm, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores compared with patients who underwent meniscal repair in the white-white zone (P < .05). Patients who underwent acute repair (≤6 weeks) demonstrated significantly higher improvements on the Tegner activity scale (acute: 5.8 ± 2.2; chronic: 4.6 ± 2.2; P = .001) and Lysholm score (acute: 85.6 ± 13.3; chronic: 80.8 ± 13.5; P = .025) compared with patients treated beyond 6 weeks from injury, regardless of the meniscal tear zone. Patients with grade IV femoral condyle chondral lesions at the time of surgery had significantly inferior outcomes compared with patients with grade I through III chondral lesions, regardless of the meniscal tear zone. Three patients (1.7%) subsequently underwent revision inside-out repair, and 3 (1.7%) underwent partial meniscectomy.

Conclusion

Patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair demonstrated significant improvements on subjective outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up, regardless of the meniscal tear zone. Inside-out meniscal repair is recommended for potentially reparable meniscal tears in all 3 vascular zones; however, improved outcomes can be achieved when performed acutely, in the absence of full-thickness femoral condyle chondral injuries, and in the red-red and red-white zones.

Rehabilitation following meniscal repair: a systematic review

Objective

To review existing biomechanical and clinical evidence regarding postoperative weight-bearing and range of motion restrictions for patients following meniscal repair surgery.

Methods and data sources

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline, we searched MEDLINE using following search strategy: ((((“Weight-Bearing/physiology”[Mesh]) OR “Range of Motion, Articular”[Mesh]) OR “Rehabilitation”[Mesh])) AND (“Menisci, Tibial”[Mesh]). Additional articles were derived from previous reviews. Eligible studies were published in English and reported a rehabilitation protocol following meniscal repair on human. We summarised rehabilitation protocols and patients’ outcome among original studies.

Results

Seventeen clinical studies were included in this systematic review. There was wide variation in rehabilitation protocols among clinical studies. Biomechanical evidence from small cadaveric studies suggests that higher degrees of knee flexion and weight-bearing may be safe following meniscal repair and may not compromise the repair. An accelerated protocol with immediate weight-bearing at tolerance and early motion to non-weight-bearing with immobilising up to 6 weeks postoperatively is reported. Accelerated rehabilitation protocols are not associated with higher failure rates following meniscal repair.

Conclusions

There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal postoperative protocol following meniscal repair. Small clinical studies support rehabilitation protocols that allow early motion. Additional studies are needed to better clarify the interplay between tear type, repair method and optimal rehabilitation protocol.

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.

COMBINED INSIDE-OUT AND ALL-INSIDE TECHNIQUE IN BUCKET-HANDLE MENISCUS TEARS

OBJECTIVE

To determine the outcomes after combined inside-out and all-inside repair technique of bucket-handle meniscus tears.

METHODS

A retrospective review was made of patients with bucket-handle meniscus tears repaired with combined techniques, using the all-inside technique in posterior meniscal tears and the inside-out technique in the middle part of the meniscal tears. Meniscal healing was assessed clinically using Barrett's criteria and MRI.

RESULTS

The study comprised 52 patients with a mean age of 28.4 years old (range, 19-52 years old). The mean follow-up period was 31.3 months (range, 24-59 months). Two patients had ACL re-rupture, and complete meniscal healing was achieved in all but one patient. Although improved from preoperative status, Tegner and Lysholm scores were lower in the ACL reconstructed patients than in the intact ACL patients.

CONCLUSION

Combined inside-out and all-inside meniscal repair technique is a successful and cost-effective treatment method in bucket-handle meniscus tears. Level of Evidence IV, Therapeutic Study.

Tibiofemoral contact pressures in radial tears of the meniscus treated with all-inside repair, inside-out repair and partial meniscectomy

BACKGROUND

To test contact pressures in the knee after treatment of a radial meniscus tear with an all-inside meniscal repair technique and compare the results with inside-out repair and partial meniscectomy.

METHODS

Six non-paired cadaveric knees were analyzed with intra-compartment pressures measured at loads of 250 N, 500 N and 1000 N at 0°, eight degrees, 15°, and 30° of knee flexion. Compartmental contact pressures were measured for the intact medial meniscus, radial tear in the posterior horn, all-inside repair using the NovoStitch suture passer device (Ceterix Orthopaedics Inc., Menlo Park, CA), inside-out repair method, and partial meniscectomy. One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The greatest differences in peak pressures between treatments were observed under 1000 N load at 30° flexion (0.8± (SD) 0.1 MPa (intact meniscus), 0.8± (SD) 0.1 MPa (all-inside), 0.9± (SD) 0.1 MPa (inside-out) and 1.6± (SD) 0.2 MPa (partial meniscectomy)). Treatment with partial meniscectomy resulted in the highest peak pressures compared to all other states (p<0.0001 at each angle). Repair of the radial tear using the all-inside technique as well as the inside-out technique resulted in significantly decreased compartment pressures compared to partial meniscectomies (p<0.0001 at each angle). There were no significant differences between peak pressures in the intact state and after repair with the all-inside or inside-out techniques.

CONCLUSION

An all-inside repair technique using the NovoStitch suture passer can decrease contact pressures for a radial meniscus tear similarly to the inside-out repair technique when compared to partial meniscectomy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This novel arthroscopic suture passer warrants further analysis in the clinical setting as it may be a reliable method for repair of radial meniscal tears through an arthroscopic all-inside technique.

The Results of All-Inside Meniscus Repair Using the Viper Repair System Simultaneously with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background

Meniscus tears are commonly associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. It is essential to repair meniscal tears as much as possible to prevent early osteoarthritis and to gain additional stability in the knee joint. We evaluated the results of arthroscopic all-inside repair using the Meniscal Viper Repair System (Arthrex) on meniscus tears simultaneously with ACL reconstruction.

Methods

Nineteen out of 22 patients who were treated with arthroscopic all-inside repair using the Meniscal Viper Repair System for meniscus tear associated with ACL rupture were evaluated. ACL reconstructions were performed at the same period. The mean follow-up period was 16.5 months (range, 12 to 24 months). The clinical results of the meniscus repair were evaluated by symptoms (such as catching or locking), tenderness, effusion, range of motion limitation, and the McMurray test. Clinical success was defined by negative results in all five categories. The Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score was evaluated. Objective results were evaluated with secondary look arthroscopy or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The MRI results were categorized as completely repaired, incompletely repaired, and failure by Henning's classification. The results of second-look arthroscopy were evaluated with the criteria of meniscal healing.

Results

The clinical success rate was 95.4% and the HSS scores were 93.9 ± 5.4 at the final follow-up. According to Henning's classification, 15 out of 18 cases showed complete healing (83.3%) and two cases (11.1%) showed incomplete healing. Seventeen out of 18 cases that underwent second-look arthroscopy showed complete healing (94.4%) according to the criteria of meniscal healing. Only one case showed failure and the failure was due to a re-rupture at the sutured area. Complications of ACL reconstruction or meniscus repair were not present.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate that arthroscopic all-inside repair using the Meniscal Viper Repair System is an effective treatment method when it is performed simultaneously with ACL reconstruction.

Platelet-rich plasma in meniscal repair: does augmentation improve surgical outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Increased contact stresses after meniscectomy have led to an increased focus on meniscal preservation strategies to prevent articular cartilage degeneration. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has received attention as a promising strategy to help induce healing and has been shown to do so both in vitro and in vivo. Although PRP has been used in clinical practice for some time, to date, few clinical studies support its use in meniscal repair.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to (1) evaluate whether PRP augmentation at the time of index meniscal repair decreases the likelihood that subsequent meniscectomy will be performed; (2) determine if PRP augmentation in arthroscopic meniscus repair influenced functional outcome measures; and (3) examine whether PRP augmentation altered clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2011, three surgeons performed 35 isolated arthroscopic meniscus repairs. Of those, 15 (43%) were augmented with PRP, and 20 (57%) were performed without PRP augmentation. During the study period, PRP was used for patients with meniscus tears in the setting of no ACL reconstruction. Complete followup at a minimum of 2 years (mean, 4 years; range, 2-6 years) was available on 11 (73%) of the PRP-augmented knees and 15 (75%) of the nonaugmented knees. Clinical outcome measures including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and return to work and sports/activities survey tools were completed in person, over the phone, or through the mail. Range of motion data were collected from electronic patient charts in chart review. With the numbers available, a post hoc power calculation demonstrated that we would have expected to be able to discern a difference using IKDC if we treated 153 patients with PRP and 219 without PRP assuming an alpha rate of 5% and power exceeding 80%. Using the Lysholm score as an outcome measure, post hoc power estimate was 0.523 and effect size was -1.1 (-2.1 to -0.05) requiring 12 patients treated with PRP and 17 without to find statistically significant differences at p = 0.05 and power = 80%.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the proportion of patients who underwent reoperation in the PRP group (27% [four of 15]) compared with the non-PRP group (25% [five of 20]; p = 0.89). Functional outcome measures were not different between the two groups based on the measures used (mean IKDC score, 69; SD, 26 with PRP and 76; SD, 17 without PRP; p = 0.288; mean, Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, 66, SD, 32 with PRP and 89; SD, 10 without PRP; p = 0.065). With the numbers available there was no difference in the proportion of patients who returned to work in the PRP group (100% [six of six]) compared with the non-PRP group (100% [nine of nine]) or in the patients who returned to their regular sports/activities in the PRP group (71% [five of seven]) compared with the non-PRP group (78% [seven of nine]; p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who sustain meniscus injuries should be counseled at the time of injury about the outcomes after meniscus repair. With our limited study group, outcomes after meniscus repair with and without PRP appear similar in terms of reoperation rate. However, given the lack of power and nature of the study, modest size differences in outcome may not have been detected. Future larger prospective studies are needed to definitively determine whether PRP should be used with meniscal repair. Additionally, studies are needed to determine if PRP and other biologics may benefit complex tear types.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Biomechanical evaluation of an all-inside suture-based device for repairing longitudinal meniscal tears

PURPOSE

A device for all-inside suture-based meniscal repairs has been introduced (NovoStitch; Ceterix, Menlo Park, CA) that passes the suture vertically through the meniscus, thereby encircling the tear, and does not require an additional incision or extra-capsular anchors. Our aim was to compare this all-inside suture-based repair with an inside-out suture repair and an all-inside anchor-based repair (FasT-Fix 360°; Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA).

METHODS

Longitudinal tears were created in 36 fresh-frozen porcine menisci. Repairs were performed using an all-inside suture-based meniscal repair device, an all-inside anchor-based repair, and an inside-out suture repair. They were tested with cyclic loading and load-to-failure testing. The displacement, response to cyclic loading (100, 300, and 500 cycles), and mode of failure were recorded. The stiffness of the constructs was calculated as well.

RESULTS

The all-inside suture-based repairs and the inside-out repairs showed significantly higher loads to failure than the all-inside anchor-based repairs. The stiffness values for the 3 repairs were not different. There were no differences in initial displacement. After 100, 300, and 500 cycles, the inside-out repair had higher gap formation (displacement) than the other 2 groups. Suture failure was the predominant mode of failure across all repair techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The all-inside suture-based repairs and inside-out repairs did not exhibit different load-to-failure values. In addition, the all-inside suture-based repairs and the all-inside anchor-based repairs did not exhibit different displacement values during cyclic loading.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

When addressing a longitudinal meniscal tear, surgeons should consider biomechanical data of various repair devices and techniques in their decision-making process to maximize the mechanical strength and healing probability of the repair.

Analysis of a new all-inside versus inside-out technique for repairing radial meniscal tears

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare gap formation, strength, and stiffness of repaired radial tears of the meniscus treated using a new all-inside technique versus a traditional inside-out suture technique.

METHODS

Radial tears were created in 36 fresh-frozen porcine menisci. Repairs were performed using a novel all-inside suture-based meniscal repair device or an inside-out technique. The repairs were tested for cyclic loading and load to failure. The displacement, response to cyclic loading (100, 300, and 500 cycles), and mode of failure were recorded, and the construct's stiffness was calculated.

RESULTS

The all-inside repairs using the novel device resulted in a significantly lower displacement (gap formation) after 100, 300, and 500 cycles (P = .002, P = .001, and P = .001, respectively). The ultimate load to failure was significantly greater for the all-inside repairs (111.61 N v 95.01 N; P = .03). The all-inside repairs showed greater stiffness (14.53 N/mm v 11.19 N/mm; P = .02). The all-inside repairs failed most often by suture breakage (suture failure). The inside-out repairs failed most commonly when the suture pulled through the tissue (tissue failure) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

For repair of radial tears of the meniscus, the vertical suture configuration created by the all-inside technique resulted in lower displacement, higher load to failure, and greater stiffness compared with the horizontal inside-out technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In a porcine specimen meniscus repair model, the biomechanical properties of a vertical all-inside technique were superior to that of a horizontal inside-out technique. Future studies of biomechanical and clinical outcomes in human meniscal repairs with this device are warranted to explore whether this repair method is valuable to clinical practice and patient outcomes.

Free rehabilitation is safe after isolated meniscus repair: a prospective randomized trial comparing free with restricted rehabilitation regimens

BACKGROUND

The optimal rehabilitation program after meniscus repair has not been established. Numerous regimens have been suggested as beneficial for meniscus healing, but no controlled trials exist in the literature.

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this prospective randomized trial was to investigate outcome with a free or a restricted rehabilitation regimen after isolated meniscus repair. The hypothesis was that free rehabilitation would result in increased failure of meniscus healing.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients were included in this study within 2 to 3 days after meniscus repair. No patients with concomitant ligament reconstruction or cartilage repair surgery were included. Meniscus repair was performed with the all-inside technique; only vertical meniscus lesions close to the capsule were repaired. Patients were randomized to free (n = 32) or restricted (n = 28) rehabilitation. Free rehabilitation consisted of 2 weeks (range of motion [ROM], 0°-90°, no brace) and touch weightbearing, with unrestricted activity and free ROM allowed thereafter. Restricted rehabilitation consisted of 6 weeks of hinged brace use with a gradual increase ROM to 90° and only touch weightbearing during the 6 weeks. Patients were seen for follow-up at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Those patients with joint line pain at the 3-month follow-up underwent MRI scanning to evaluate meniscus healing; a subsequent arthroscopy was performed for final evaluation meniscus healing if the MRI indicated lack of meniscus healing. At follow-up, the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Tegner function score, pain assessment, and patient satisfaction were used to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were lost to follow-up. Repeat arthroscopy in patients with persistent symptoms demonstrated partial healing or lack of healing in 28% and 36% of patients in the free and the restricted rehabilitation groups, respectively (P = .53, nonsignificant). The KOOS and Tegner function scores were similar between groups at all follow-up times, as was patient satisfaction. Patients who underwent subsequent partial meniscectomy because of meniscus repair failure had lower KOOS score and Tegner function score than did patients without repair failure.

CONCLUSION

Free rehabilitation after meniscus repair is safe and does not entail increased failure rates compared with restricted rehabilitation. Subjective and functional outcomes at 1- and 2-year follow-up were not affected by rehabilitation regimen. Clinical outcomes in patients with repair failure who underwent subsequent partial meniscectomy were poorer than in those with healed meniscus repairs. A concern is the 30% overall lack of healing for patients with isolated meniscus lesions repaired with the all-inside technique.

Results of arthroscopic repair of partial- or full-thickness longitudinal medial meniscal tears by single or double vertical sutures using the inside-out technique

BACKGROUND

Although numerous studies have assessed arthroscopic repair of meniscal tears, no study has described the repair of partial- or full-thickness longitudinal medial meniscal tears using single or double vertical sutures.

PURPOSE

To present the intermediate-term results of medial meniscal tears repaired with single or double vertical sutures.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The authors evaluated the results of 112 longitudinal medial meniscal tears treated with inside-out single or double vertical sutures, with or without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, based on the clinical resolution of symptoms, the Lysholm knee scoring scale, and the Tegner activity scale. Re-examination was also performed by magnetic resonance imaging after the repair. The length of the tears was evaluated arthroscopically. Eighty-five tears of 112 were >2 cm in length, and 27 were tears ≤2 cm. Eighty-nine (79.4%) of the 112 repairs were performed in conjunction with ACL reconstructions, and the remaining 23 (20.6%) repairs were performed in ACL-intact knees. The tear type of the menisci in our study was full thickness in 66 (58.9%) cases and partial thickness in 46 (41.1%) cases. Double vertical sutures were used for full-thickness tears, and single vertical sutures were used for partial-thickness tears.

RESULTS

The cases were evaluated after a mean follow-up duration of 49.3 months (range, 12-88 months). Clinical and radiological examination results determined that 99 (88.4%) meniscal repairs had healed, and the remaining 13 cases (10.6%) were considered to be failures. The healing rate of the full-thickness group was 80.3%, while in the partial-thickness group, the rate was 100%. The mean Lysholm score improved significantly from a preoperative value of 63.8 to a postoperative value of 89.5 (P < .001). The mean Tegner activity score was 3.3 preoperatively and 6.7 postoperatively (P < .001). Logistic regression analysis found that concurrent ACL reconstruction, tear length, and smoking as factors had a significant effect on meniscal healing.

CONCLUSION

Single or double vertical sutures using the inside-out technique provide a high rate of healing in longitudinal medial meniscal tears.