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

High failure rate after medial meniscus bucket handle tears repair in the stable knee

BACKGROUND

It is nowadays recommended to "Save the meniscus". This paradigm is based on the affirmation that an extended meniscectomy exposes to the risk of long-term secondary osteoarthritis and the global failure rate of a longitudinal tear repair remains low, whether it is the medial or lateral meniscus, with or without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, each kind of lesion has to be studied separate.

PURPOSE

The study aimed to focus on a homogeneous population of isolated repair of the bucket handle tear (BHT) of the medial meniscus (MM) in patients with stable knees to evaluate failure rate at a minimum of three years of follow-up. The secondary objectives were to evaluate any risk factors or protective factors of failure, clinical outcomes, and secondary amount of meniscectomy in failure cases compared to the amount of meniscus fixed in the first surgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a BHT of the MM situated in the red-on-red or red-on white (RW) zone on a stable knee between January 2010 and December 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Failure was defined as a need for reoperation for recurrence of meniscal symptoms (pain, locking) on the medial side with per-operative confirmation of the absence of healing. The following parameters were studied: demographics (age, gender, BMI), time from injury to surgery, clinical scores (Tegner, Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC]), surgical findings (extent and zone of the tear), surgical management (number and type of suture).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were included. The mean follow-up was 77.2±24.4 [36-141] months. Twenty-seven (69%) failures were recorded. In 56% (15/27) of the reoperations, the meniscectomy amount was smaller than what it would have been done in the first surgery. All clinical scores improved significantly from pre- to post-operatively; all patients met minimal clinically important differences for all the scores. No risk factors were found significant in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Repairing an isolated BHT of the MM is associated with a high failure rate. Despite the failure, we observed that the meniscectomy area was smaller than documented in the primary surgery in most of the cases and repair must still be considered as the first option.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective cohort series.

Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears Might Not Be an Urgency: The Time to Meniscus Repair Does Not Seem to Affect the Mid-Term Outcome-A Retrospective Study of Sixty Tears with a Mean Follow-Up of 6 Years

Background: Bucket-handle meniscal tears are mostly treated arthroscopically. However, there is no clear evidence as to whether the time to surgery impacts the outcome and whether or not lesions should be treated urgently. Methods: Sixty patients were interviewed about the current status of their knee with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years (SD = 3.5). Forty-one patients underwent meniscus repair, and fifteen patients received partial resections. The primary outcome was the rate of reoperation after meniscus repair. Secondary outcomes were pain at rest and during exercise, return to sports, and Tegner and Lysholm scores. Results: The average time to surgery was 14.4 days, with no significant impact of surgical timing on the rate of reoperation. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in pain levels, return to sports, or Tegner and Lysholm scores based on the timing of surgery. Conclusions: In our cohort, the time to surgery was not a prognostic factor for the reoperation rate or postoperative outcome in repairing bucket-handle meniscal tears. Therefore, arthroscopic repair should not be performed in an emergency setting but conducted after careful planning by experienced arthroscopy surgeons. Regarding the return to sports, postoperative factors such as rehabilitation protocols or surgical techniques could be more important than the time to surgery.

More Is Not Merrier: Increasing Numbers of All-Inside Implants Do Not Correlate with Higher Odds of Revision Surgery

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the number of all-inside meniscal repair implants placed and the risk of repair failure. We hypothesized that the use of higher numbers of all-inside meniscus repair implants would be associated with increased failure risk. A retrospective chart review identified 351 patients who underwent all-inside meniscus repair between 2006 and 2013 by a sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon at a single institution. Patient demographics (age, body mass index [BMI], sex) and surgical data (number of implants used, concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction [cACLR], and tear type/size/location) were recorded. Patients who received repairs in both menisci or who had follow-up < 1-year postoperatively were excluded. Repair failure was identified through chart review or patient interviews defined as a revision surgery on the index knee such as partial meniscectomy, total knee arthroplasty, meniscus transplant, or repeat repair. Logistic regression modeling was utilized to evaluate the relationship between the number of implants used and repair failure. A total of 227 all-inside meniscus repairs were included with a mean follow-up of 5.0 ± 3.0 years following surgery. Repair failure was noted in 68 knees (30.3%)-in 28.1% of knees with fewer than four implants and in 35.8% of knees with four or more implants (p = 0.31). No significant increase in failure was observed with increasing number of all-inside medial (odds ratio [OR]: 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-1.7; p = 0.46) or lateral (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.47-1.57; p = 0.63) implants after controlling for patient age, BMI, cACLR, tear type, or size. Tears of the lateral meniscus located in the red-white and white-white zones had lower odds of failure (OR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.02-0.88; p = 0.036) than tears within the red-red zone, and patients with cACLR had lower odds of repair failure (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.18-0.86, p = 0.024) than those without. The number of all-inside implants placed during meniscus tear repair did not affect the likelihood of repair failure leading to reoperation after controlling for BMI, age, tear type, size, location, and cACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  III.

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.

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

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

Comparison of Cases with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Accompanied by Simultaneous Medial Meniscus Bucket Handle Tear Repair and Isolated Medial Meniscus Bucket Handle Tear Repair

The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of the all-inside repair technique for medial bucket-handle meniscus tear (BHMT) and the factors affecting healing. A total of 36 patients with BHMT who were operated between 2012 and 2018 and completed final follow-up examinations were included in the study. Functional evaluation was made with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and Tegner score. Healing was evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) slices. The patients were evaluated with respect to the effect on healing of factors such as demographic data, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, anterior cruciate ligament tear reconstruction (ACLTR) applied at the same time as BHMT repair, and the tear being chronic or acute. The mean age of the patients was 28.6 ± 8.6 years (range,18-46 years), the mean follow-up period was 25.8 ± 13.9 months (range, 13-59 months), and BMI was mean 25.6 ± 3.5 kg/m² (range, 20.1-30.5 kg/m²). The meniscus tears were acute in 16 (44.4%) patients and chronic in 20 (55.6%). ACLTR was applied together with BHMT repair in 25 patients. The hybrid technique, as the outside-in technique in addition to the all-inside technique, was applied to 12 (33.3%) patients, where there was seen to be extension to the anterior horn. The failure rate was determined as 27.8% according to the postoperative MRI evaluation and the Barrett criteria. No positive or negative statistically significant effect on healing was determined of chronic BHMT or of simultaneous application of ACLTR (p = 1.00 and 0.457, respectively). Cigarette smoking and high BMI were determined to have a statistically significant negative effect on healing (p = 0.026 and 0.007, respectively). In conclusion, it can be seen that the success of the all-inside technique for BHMT remains controversial. Due to the features of the application, it can be used in meniscus tears of the posterior horn only. In the current study, with the success rate of 72.2% of the all-inside technique in meniscus body tears, it was seen that a high success rate could not be achieved.

Several Techniques Exist With Favorable Biomechanical Outcomes in Radial Meniscus Tear Repair-A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To compare biomechanical properties of various radial tear repair techniques in the medial and lateral menisci.

METHODS

A search was performed for key words regarding mechanical properties of repair of radial meniscal tears in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, yielding 1791 articles. Articles were screened using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines against inclusion criteria and underwent Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) methodologic quality assessment. Repair constructs evaluated were classified based on repair technique, use of a transtibial augmentation, and the number, orientation, and pattern of stitches. Results published across different studies were compared but not subjected to meta-analysis due to variability in testing procedures and heterogeneity of repair methods.

RESULTS

We identified 20 studies that performed mechanical testing on 21 different radial meniscal tear repair techniques. The greatest reported mean load-to-failure (LtF) were the transtibial 2-tunnel + 4 horizontal inside-out sutures (191.2 N ± 17.3, cadaver) and all-inside double vertical repair (146.3 N ± 36.2, porcine). The transtibial technique improved LtF and displacement of an inside-out (IO) horizontal repair. All-inside vertical repairs demonstrated greater LtF, stiffness, and displacement compared with IO horizontal repairs in 2 studies. Compared with IO double horizontal repairs, all-inside double vertical or IO double horizontal repairs with reinforcing stitches parallel to the tear exhibited greater LtF in 3 studies and stiffness in 2 studies. Two studies reported that parallel reinforcing stitches significantly reduced suture tear-through compared with similar, nonreinforced repairs. Mean MINORS score for all studies analyzed was 19.88 ± 1.47 points.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review demonstrated that there may be alternatives to traditional IO horizontal repairs for radial meniscus tears. Less-invasive all-inside vertical techniques reinforced with suture parallel to the tear instead of standard IO horizontal sutures may improve strength of repair. In addition, transtibial 2-tunnel augmentation may also increase strength of radial meniscus tear repairs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There may be alternatives to IO horizontal repairs for radial meniscus tears.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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.

Arthroscopic Procedure for Chronic Isolated Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears

Arthroscopic treatment is the treatment of choice in bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs). Following BHMT, however, surgery failure rates are approximately 20% in the literature. Achieving the healing of BHMT is difficult. This is worse in chronic situations because the torn meniscus is deformed, leading to nonanatomical reduction. Some authors have reported greater failure rates, especially in the early postoperative period. In isolated BHMTs, the failure rate is greater because of inadequate and incomplete repairs due to the tight medial compartment. Multiple techniques for possible reduction of failure rate have been described. We describe an arthroscopic technique for treating chronic isolated BHMT using the technique of subcutaneously releasing the posterior fibers of the medial collateral ligament to provide adequate space for arthroscopy, meniscal reduction, and repair. A combined inside-out and all-inside repair technique was used to enhance anatomic reduction, stable fixation, surface fixation (rather than the usual suture-points fixation), and biologic healing in repairable chronic BHMTs.

Bucket-Handle Meniscus Repair in a Below-Knee Amputee: A Case Report

CASE

We report a case of a right knee lateral bucket-handle meniscal tear repair in a 25-year-old woman bilateral below-knee amputee. At the 4-year follow-up, the patient was ambulatory in a prosthesis with a successful outcome.

CONCLUSION

Meniscus repair in below-knee amputees requires careful evaluation and surgical management. Specific consideration should be given to evaluating limb alignment, maintaining the stump integrity, surgical technique, modified bracing, and rehabilitation. This case report demonstrates that bucket-handle meniscus repair can be successful in a below-knee amputee.

Vertical Continuous Meniscal Suture Technique

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

Arthroscopic procedure for revision of failed isolated bucket-handle meniscal tear repair

Surgery failure rates average 20% following bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMT) repairs in the literature. Achieving the healing of BHMT is difficult, how much more in revision cases. Some authors have reported higher failure rates especially in the early postoperative period and in younger patients. Multiple techniques and augmentations to enhance biologic healing and reduce failure rate have been described. We describe an arthroscopic technique for successfully revising a failed BHMT repair using the technique of percutaneously releasing the posterior fibers of the medial collateral ligament to provide adequate space for arthroscopy, refreshing of the torn surfaces, bed trephination before reduction and repair. We concluded that a combined double-level inside out vertical sutures with horizontal reinforcement and all-inside technique using fast fix give anatomic reduction, stable fixation, surface contact, and increased potential for biologic healing in failed BHMT repairs. Coupled with adequate rehabilitation programs, this technique has reduced the failure rate in revision cases and enhances early return to sport.

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.

Multiple hybrid sutures of bucket handle injury on the lateral and medial meniscus of the knee

The objective of the study is to show possibilities of several combinations of suture techniques in a rare bicompartmental bucket handle injury. According to specific injury characteristics, combined suturing techniques were used. The option for different meniscal suture techniques in the two knee compartments allowed the patient, after completing the treatment, to return to his activities with a preserved meniscus. Although meniscectomy continues to be a chosen technique in bucket handle injury, we attempted to show a case of bicompartmental meniscal suture with different techniques. In this, which could be a case of rapid resolution and quick return to activities with bicompartmental meniscectomy, we chose to preserve the menisci with more complex techniques and longer rehabilitation, believing that the preservation of this structure could be extremely valuable in the long term.