Arthroscopic all-inside ligament repair has similar or superior clinical outcomes compared to open repair for chronic ankle instability without concomitant intra-articular pathology at 5 years follow-up

PURPOSE

Open ligament repair is widely considered the gold standard treatment for chronic ankle instability. Nevertheless, arthroscopic treatment of ankle instability has gained popularity becoming the preferred technique for many surgeons. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of all-inside arthroscopic versus open lateral ligament repair for chronic ankle instability at 5 years follow-up.

METHODS

Ninety consecutive patients were surgically treated for chronic ankle instability without concomitant intra-articular pathology observed on MRI: 41 patients [median age 28 (range 15-54) years] underwent an open lateral ligament repair (OLR); 49 patients [median age 30 (range 19-47) years] underwent an all-inside arthroscopic ligament repair (ALR). Functional outcomes using the Foot Functional Index (FFI), the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Hindfoot Score, and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Sports Subscale (FAAM-SS) were assessed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up. At the latest follow-up, the satisfaction rate and complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 58 ± 17.6 (range 47-81) months. In both groups FFI, AOFAS and FAAM-SS score significantly improved compared to preoperative values (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative outcomes between groups in the AOFAS (n.s) and FAAM-SS (n.s), but the FFI results were significantly better in the ALR group (p < 0.05). No major complications were reported in either group.

CONCLUSION

Open and arthroscopic ligament repair to treat chronic ankle instability without concomitant intra-articular pathology produced excellent comparable clinical outcomes at 5 years follow-up. The complications were minimal in both study groups with no significant differences in AOFAS and FAAM-SS scores. However, arthroscopic repair showed significantly better results on the FFI. Therefore, when treating chronic lateral ankle instability, surgeons should consider arthroscopic ligament repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

No risk of iatrogenic peroneal nerve injury in all-inside lateral meniscal repair with either 14- or 18-mm needles through the popliteus tendon in the standard arthroscopic knee conditions

PURPOSE

The objectives of this prospective study were to evaluate the risk of peroneal nerve (PN) injury in simulated all-inside lateral meniscal repair with sutures placed through the popliteus tendon (PT) and to determine the optimal needle length.

METHODS

Twenty-nine axial magnetic resonance images (MRI) of postoperative knees with infused intra-articular fluid and in a figure-of-four position were used. The cross-sectional length of the PT was divided into four equal parts with measurements performed at the 25%, 50% and 75% points according to their anteroposterior arrangement. Simulated repairs were performed with 14-mm and 18-mm straight needles via the anteromedial (AM) and anterolateral (AL) portals. Distances from the needle tip following full insertion through the PT to the PN and from the anterior PT border to the posterior knee capsule were measured to determine PN injury risk and ideal needle insertion depths at the different landmarks.

RESULTS

Simulated repairs on the 29 knee MRI images resulted in no incidences of PN injury. The average distances from the needle tip to the PN of the 14-mm needle were significantly greater than the 18-mm needle in all the simulated repairs (P < 0.02), except at the 25% point in the AM approach. When using the 14-mm needle, capsule underpenetration was found in three knees (10.3%) at the 25% point during the AM approach, in one knee (3.4%) at the 50% and 75% points in the AM approach, and in all repairs from the AL portal. The average distances from the anterior PT border to the capsule at the 25%, 50%, and 75% division points on the PT in the AM approach were 7.7 ± 2.7 mm, 7.9 ± 2.5 mm and 7.6 ± 2.8 mm, respectively, whilst in the AL approach were 8.4 ± 2.9 mm, 8.1 ± 2.8 mm and 7.6 ± 2.7 mm.

CONCLUSION

Simulated all-inside lateral meniscal repair with suture placement through the PT with 14-mm and 18-mm needles was safe. The measurements in this study can be used to determine potential PN injury risk in relation to the PT and the appropriate needle length for safe lateral meniscal repairs.

All-inside repair of bucket handle meniscus tears - Mid-term outcomes with postoperative magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate our results of bucket handle meniscus tear (BHMT) repairs with an all-inside repair technique using postoperative radiological imaging to evaluate meniscus reduction and healing and use them as criteria for evaluation of repair success.

METHODS

Prospective recruitment of 20 patients with 21 BHMT repairs performed with an all-inside techniqueover a period from 2013 to 2015. All patients had an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form (SKF), Lysholm Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Tegner Activity Level Scale obtained pre-operatively and at a minimum of 24 months after surgery. All patients had postoperative knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed between 18 and 24 months after surgery to assess the stability or failure of their repairs.At 5 years after surgery, the patients were assessed with regard to whether they had undergone repeat surgery or not.

RESULTS

At 2 years, the mean postoperative SKF, Lysholm and KOOS grand scores were 78.9, 88.5 and 86.8, respectively. The mean pre-injury Tegner Activity Scale was 7.6 and postoperatively it was 6.0. There was a significant difference in all pre- and postoperative outcome scores (P < 0.01). The postoperative MRIs showed that 19 of the 21 BHMT repairs had stable reduction of the tear fragment and two patients had displacement of the torn bucket handle fragment. At 5 years, one patient had undergone revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

BHMTs can be repaired with all-inside techniques with good results and successful outcomes.

The modified cross-suture technique for unilateral pulled-out anchor during all-inside meniscal repair

Background

Meniscal repair has received increasing attention, but for inexperienced doctors, unilateral suture anchor pulling out may occur during all-inside meniscal repair, and the treatment outcome may be affected. When the errors happened intraoperatively, how to minimize the loss under guaranteeing of treatment effectiveness is a topic worth studying.

Purpose

To explore the practicability and effectiveness of the modified cross-suture method for arthroscopic remediation of unilateral suture anchor pulling out of an all-inside meniscal repair system.

Methods

From May 2014 to May 2017, 28 patients diagnosed with injuries of the meniscus and anterior cruciate ligaments (ACL) from the First Department of Orthopaedics of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University were enrolled in the study as the observation group, including 18 males and 10 females with an average age of 25.5 ± 2.3 years (range 18–42 years). All patients underwent ACL reconstruction concurrently. All meniscus injuries were repaired with an all-inside meniscal repair technique, and 1–3 needles of unilateral suture anchor pulling out occurred intraoperatively. The modified cross-suture method was used to remedy the error of anchor pulling out and to eventually complete an effective repair. Another 30 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction and all-inside meniscal concurrently without unilateral suture anchor pulling out, including 20 males and 10 females with an average age of 26.3 ± 1.9 years (range 19–45 years), were enrolled as the control group. During postoperative follow-up, range of motion, Lachman test and pivot shift test were performed during the physical examination. The clinical healing of the meniscus was evaluated according to the Barrett standard. The meniscus healing status was also confirmed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The function of the knee joint was evaluated according to the IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores.

Results

Twenty-five patients in the observation group and 28 patients in the control group completed the follow-up, with an average follow-up of 18.4 ± 5.2 months. All operations were performed by the same surgeon. At the follow-up 1 year after the operation, the average knee ROM of the two groups was 125.2 ± 4.3 degrees and 124.7 ± 3.8 degrees, the clinical healing rate of the meniscus of the two groups was 92.0% (23/25) and 92.9% (26/28), the MRI healing rate of the menniscus of the two groups was 72.0% (18/25) and 71.4% (20/28), and the IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores of the two groups were 90.52 ± 2.8, 89.17 ± 3.1, and 6.81 ± 1.7 and 91.42 ± 1.9, 90.32 ± 3.4, and 7.02 ± 1.4, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The modified cross-suture method is practicable and effective for arthroscopic remediation of unilateral suture anchor pulling out in an all-inside meniscal repair system.

The popliteus tendon provides a safe and reliable location for all-inside meniscal repair device placement

PURPOSE

Repairs of the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus can be technically challenging. In contrast to medial meniscus repairs, the capsule around the posterior segment attachment of the lateral meniscus is quite thin. This study evaluates the clinical results of an arthroscopic all-inside repair technique for unstable, vertical, lateral meniscus tears, using a suture repair placed directly into the popliteus tendon.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the SANTI database was performed. All patients who had undergone combined ACL reconstruction with lateral meniscus all-inside repair, using sutures placed in the popliteus tendon, between 2011 and 2015, were included. Patients were reviewed clinically at 1 and 2 years' follow-up. At final follow-up, all patients were contacted to identify if they underwent further surgery or had knee pain, locking or effusion. Symptomatic patients were recalled for clinical evaluation by a physician and Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the knee. Operative notes for those undergoing further surgery were reviewed and rates and type of re-operation, including for failed lateral meniscal repair were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients (mean age 28.6 ± 10.2 years) with a mean follow-up of 45.5 ± 12.8 months (range 24.7-75.2) were included. The mean Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) at final follow-up was 85.0 ± 11.3. The post-operative mean side-to-side laxity measured at 1 year was 0.6 ± 1.0 mm. Twenty-six patients underwent re-operation (13%) at a mean follow-up of 14.8 ± 7.8 months. The ACL graft rupture rate was 5.0%. Other causes for re-operation included medial meniscus tear (2.5%), cyclops lesion (1.5%) and septic arthritis (0.5%). The lateral meniscus repair failure rate was 3.5%. No specific complications relating to placement of sutures in the popliteus tendon were identified.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic all-inside repair of unstable, vertical, lateral meniscus tears using a suture placed in the popliteus tendon is a safe technique. It is associated with a very low failure rate with no specific complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

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.