Clinical Outcomes of Different Management Techniques for Medial Meniscal Type 3 Ramp Lesions in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparative Analysis Between All-inside Repair, Suture Hook Repair, and Lesions Left In Situ

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate about the best way to manage ramp lesions at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). Type 3 lesions are not visible by the transnotch approach without superior debridement, making the management debate even more problematic.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of secondary surgical interventions according to the management method of a type 3 ramp lesion concomitant with primary ACLR. The hypothesis was that the rate of secondary ACL or meniscal interventions would be higher in patients who underwent all-inside repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent primary ACLR with a type 3 ramp lesion between January 2012 and May 2020, regardless of the treatment method, was performed. The main criterion analyzed in this cohort was a secondary surgical intervention, defined as revision ACLR or a reintervention of the repaired meniscus. A survivorship analysis was performed to evaluate secondary surgical interventions in 3 groups: all-inside repair, suture hook repair, and left in situ. The following data were collected preoperatively and at the last follow-up: patient characteristics, time to surgery, side-to-side difference in laxity, pivot shift, Lysholm score, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Tegner score, and meniscal repair failure rate.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients who underwent type 3 ramp lesion repair concomitant with ACLR were included: 52 (46.0%) in the all-inside repair group, 23 (20.4%) in the suture hook repair group, and 38 (33.6%) in the lesion left in situ group. There were 17 patients (15.0%) who underwent a secondary intervention because of ACL graft failure (n = 6) or meniscal repair failure (n = 15 [4 of whom underwent a concomitant ACL reintervention]). Overall, 62 patients (54.9%) underwent combined ACLR and anterolateral ligament reconstruction, while 51 patients (45.1%) underwent isolated ACLR. In the adjusted Cox model, the type of meniscal repair was not statistically significantly associated with secondary surgical interventions. The only risk factor for secondary surgical interventions in this cohort was isolated ACLR (hazard ratio, 8.077; P = .007).

CONCLUSION

The rates of secondary surgical interventions after medial meniscal type 3 ramp lesion repair concomitant with ACLR were similar regardless of the management method of the meniscal lesion. Despite not being associated with meniscal treatment, this rate was 8 times higher for patients who underwent isolated ACLR in this cohort; this is probably because of the protection that lateral extra-articular procedures provide to the ACL graft.

Meniscal Repair Outcome in 3829 Patients With a Minimum Follow-up From 2 Years Up to 5 Years: A Meta-analysis on the Overall Failure Rate and Factors Influencing Failure

BACKGROUND

The importance of meniscal repair is widely accepted because of the association of loss of meniscal tissue with the development of early-onset knee arthritis. Many factors influencing the results of meniscal repair have been reported, but results remain controversial.

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis determines the pooled meniscal repair failure rate of studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years up to 5 years, with a mean follow-up of 43 months. Moreover, selected failure-influencing factors are analyzed.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies published between January 2000 and November 2021 reporting on meniscal repair outcome with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The overall pooled failure rate and pooled failure rates for possible predictors were calculated. Random-effect models were used to pool failure rates, and effect estimates in the form of odds ratios with 95% CIs were established.

RESULTS

The initial literature search identified 6519 studies. A total of 51 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 3931 menisci were included with an overall failure rate of 14.8%. Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly lower failure rate for meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction compared with knees without any reported injury to the ACL (8.5% vs 14%; P = .043). The pooled failure rate for lateral meniscal repair was significantly lower than that for medial meniscal repair (6.1% vs 10.8%; P = .031). Pooled failure rates of all-inside and inside-out repair were not significantly different (11.9% vs 10.6%; P > .05).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis on close to 4000 patients demonstrates an overall meniscal repair failure rate of 14.8% at a minimum follow-up from 2 years up to 5 years. Meniscal repair remains a procedure with a high failure rate, especially within the first 2 postoperative years. This review and meta-analysis also identified clinically relevant factors associated with favorable outcomes such as concomitant ACL reconstruction or repair of the lateral meniscus. All-inside meniscal repair with the latest-generation devices yields failure rates of <10%. The failure mechanism and the time of failure is poorly documented; further studies are needed for a better understanding of the retear mechanism.

All-Inside Arthroscopic Meniscus Repair for Patients Over 40 Years of Age: Is Forty the New Twenty?

INTRODUCTION

Meniscal injuries are a common challenge in orthopedic surgery. For decades, partial or total meniscectomy has been the primary surgical treatment for meniscal tears. In recent years, the increased recognition of menisci's biomechanical importance has progressively shifted the paradigm towards meniscus repair. However, meniscus-sparing surgery remains the treatment of choice for selected lesions in young and active patients, especially for young and active patients. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of all-inside sutures in treating meniscus tears in patients over 40.

METHODS

In our retrospective evaluation, we evaluated the clinical and functional outcomes of cases over 40 years of age with post-traumatic acute meniscus tears that received meniscus repairs using the all-inside technique. The pre-operative and post-operative functionality of treated patients were assessed using the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) score. Major complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-three cases met our inclusion criteria. Eight females and fifteen males with a mean age of 44.9 were included in our study. Their mean follow-up was 35.1 months. Before surgery, our patients' mean KOOS score was 55.4 (18-80). At the patients' latest follow-up, the value had risen to 87.4 (63-100). There was no statistical correlation between patients' age and their functional recovery. No surgical failure was recorded at the latest follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The all-inside suture technique can represent a suitable and reliable solution for suturable meniscal tears, even for patients over 40. Preserving the meniscus and restoring patients' functionality allows patients to return to their daily activities and promote their quality of life.

A Biomechanical Comparison of All-Inside Versus Transtibial Meniscus Root Repair Techniques

BACKGROUND

Meniscus root tears are associated with chondral injury, early degenerative change, and a high conversion rate to total knee arthroplasty. It is well-established that meniscus root tears lead to decreased femorotibial contact area, increased peak contact pressures, and increased stress on the articular cartilage.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of the all-inside meniscus root repair procedure and compare it with the previously described transtibial technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Nine paired cadaveric knees were prepared by removing skin, subcutaneous tissues, quadriceps muscles, patella, and patellar tendon, while leaving the capsule in place. Pressure-mapping sensors were inserted, and specimens underwent compressive loading to obtain peak pressures, mean pressures, and femorotibial contact area in the medial and lateral compartments. Tests were performed as static compression tests with the knee locked at 0° of flexion. Compression testing was performed in 3 states: meniscus intact, meniscus root cut, and after meniscus root repair with an all-inside repair technique. Additionally, testing was completed on 9 pairs of cadaveric knees to compare stiffness and maximal load to failure between the all-inside and transtibial meniscus root repair techniques.

RESULTS

In the medial compartment, there were significant increases in median peak pressures and median mean pressures in the root cut state as compared with the intact state (+636 kPA [95% CI, 246 to 1026] and +190 kPA [95% CI, 49 to 330], respectively). All-inside meniscus root repair restored median peak pressures and median mean pressures to approach those of the intact meniscus (+311 kPA [95% CI, -79 to 701] and +137 kPA [95% CI, -3 to 277]). In the lateral compartment, there were also significant increases in median peak pressures and median mean pressures in the root cut state as compared with the intact state (+718 kPA [95% CI, 246 to 1191] and +203 kPA [95% CI, 51 to 355]). All-inside meniscus root repair restored median peak pressures and median mean pressures such that they were not significantly different from the intact state (+322 kPA [95% CI, -150 to 795] and +18 kPA [95% CI, -134 to 171]). There was no difference between repair techniques regarding load to failure (P = .896). Transtibial meniscus root repair had significantly more stiffness (mean ± SD, 24.8 ± 9.3 N/mm) as compared with the all-inside meniscus root repair technique (13.6 ± 3.8 N/mm, P = .015).

CONCLUSION

All-inside meniscus root repair reduced median peak and mean pressures to those of the native intact meniscus with the knee in extension in the cadaveric model. When compared with a transtibial meniscus root repair technique, all-inside repair demonstrated decreased stiffness and a similar load to failure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

All-inside meniscus root repair restored mean and peak femorotibial pressures to those of the intact meniscus. Additionally, it offers a technically easier technique for management of meniscus root tears.

Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair: University Hospital Southampton Experience

Introduction The meniscus plays an integral role in the proper functioning of the knee joint. Located between the articular surfaces of the tibia and femur, the meniscus functions to provide stability to the knee joint, even out axial load, absorb shock, and provide some lubrication to the knee joint. Accordingly, treatment of meniscal injuries aims to preserve as much meniscal tissue as possible to avoid the myriad complications that arise from its removal. This study of the all-inside technique for meniscal repair evaluates the University Hospital Southampton experience by comparing our outcomes with the available literature. Patients and methods This is a retrospective study from January 2016 to December 2020. Records of patients were obtained through the preoperative assessment clinics network and electronic notes. The endpoints of the study were defined as patients who either were discharged, experienced failure of repair, i.e., symptomatic or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) changes, or were offered re-surgery. Results Eighty-one patients, comprising 51 males and 30 females, were included in the study, and 85 repairs were performed. A steady increase in the number of procedures was observed year on year until the outbreak of COVID-19. The mean age of patients was 24.7 years, with a range of 39 years. The medial meniscus was found to be injured more often than the lateral meniscus. The most commonly observed injury pattern was the bucket handle (BH) type. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury was found to be associated with meniscal injuries in around half of patients. The reason for this occurrence can be attributed to the ligamentous connection between the medial meniscus and the anterior cruciate ligament in the phenomenon described in the "unhappy triad." On average, three FasT-Fix sutures were required per procedure. Discussion and conclusion After a follow-up of 11 months, 11 (13.6%) treated patients were noted to have failed repair, as defined by the endpoint criteria. Age and acuity were noted to not affect outcomes, and the results suggest that males are at higher risk of failed repair than females (p<0.05).

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.

All-inside technique versus in situ transtendon repair for Ellman Ⅲ partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion

BACKGROUND

The current surgical techniques for repairing Ellman Ⅲ partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion (PASTA) is mainly tear completion followed by repair and in situ transtendon repair, and both techniques have been proven to have good clinical effects. In situ transtendon repair is more widely used because of its high performance in preserving the integrity of the bursal side supraspinatus tendon. However, there is still some scope for improvement. Our purpose was to compare the clinical outcomes of the all-inside repair technique and in situ transtendon repair for Ellman III PASTA.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study was conducted on 56 patients who suffered from Ellman Ⅲ PASTA and underwent rotator cuff repair; 28 patients were treated with the all-inside technique (group A), and 28 patients were treated with the transtendinous technique (group B). All patients were followed up for at least 2 years. The visual analog scale (VAS), Constant, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were used to evaluate the patient's shoulder joint function before surgery, 1 month and 3 months after surgery, and at the last time of follow-up.

RESULTS

Group A showed superiority in pain and functional improvement 1 month after the operation: the VAS score, 2.8 ± 0.3 in group A vs. 4.7 ± 0.4 in group B (P = .042); Constant score, 73 ± 5 in group A vs. 60 ± 6 in group B (P = .038); and ASES score, 75 ± 5 in group A vs. 58 ± 7 in group B (P = .043), whereas there was no statistical difference in group B. However, 3 months after surgery and at the last follow-up, the VAS, Constant, and ASES scores in both groups were significantly improved (P < .01), and there was no significant statistical difference between the groups (P > .05). Magnetic resonance imaging showed that the repaired rotator cuff tendon-bone healed well; at the last follow-up, all patients were in good function, the pain was completely relieved, and no revision was performed in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic repair of Ellman Ⅲ PASTA provided satisfactory functional improvements and pain relief regardless of the all-inside and in situ transtendon repair techniques. However, the all-inside repair technique is more beneficial due to its dual function in preserving the intact bursa and avoidance of uneven tension of the articular side, which is advantageous to early postoperative rehabilitation.

Trans-Posterior Cruciate Ligament All-Inside Root Repair Versus Partial Meniscectomy for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tears: Comparison of Semiquantitative and Quantitative MRI Outcomes in Cartilage Degeneration and Osteoarthritic Progression

OBJECTIVE

To perform conventional, morphological, and T2 mapping compositional MRI imaging to assess the cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritic progression in patients with medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) who underwent trans-posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) all-inside repair or partial meniscectomy.

DESIGN

Patients with MMPRTs after trans-PCL all-inside repair (group AR) or partial meniscectomy (group PM) between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively identified. Preoperative and postoperative conventional MRI were collected to assess medial meniscus extrusion (MME) and the whole-organ magnetic resonance imaging score (WORMS). Postoperative morphological MRI and T2 mapping compositional MRI were collected to evaluate the quantitative cartilage thickness/volume and cartilage composition.

RESULTS

The final cohort consisted of 21 patients in group AR and 22 patients in group PM, with no differences in demographic data and baseline patient characteristics between the 2 groups. Group AR demonstrated less progression of articular cartilage wear (P < 0.05) and decreased meniscal extrusion (P = 0.008) than group PM at the final follow-up. In addition, group AR demonstrated less extracellular matrix degeneration in the cartilage subregion of the medial compartment (P < 0.05) than group PM with lower T2 relaxation times in the superficial layer of the articular cartilage.

CONCLUSION

Trans-PCL all-inside repair of MMPRTs could delay the initial cartilage deterioration and morphological cartilage degeneration compared with partial meniscectomy. However, the amount of residual meniscal extrusion is clinically important, and an improved root repair fixation method should be investigated.

Arthroscopic-Assisted Versus All-Arthroscopic Ankle Stabilization Technique

BACKGROUND

Both the percutaneous technique with arthroscopic assistance, also known as arthroscopic Broström (AB), and the arthroscopic all-inside ligament repair (AI) are widely used to treat chronic lateral ankle instability. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of these 2 arthroscopic stabilizing techniques.

METHODS

Thirty-nine consecutive patients were arthroscopically treated for chronic ankle instability by 2 different surgeons. The AB group comprised 20 patients with a mean age of 30.2 (range, 18-42) years and a mean follow-up of 19.6 (range, 12-28) months. The AI group comprised 19 patients with a mean age of 30.9 (range, 18-46) years and mean follow-up of 20.7 (range, 13-32) months. Functional outcomes using the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score and visual analog pain scale (VAS) were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Range of motion (ROM) and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

In both groups the AOFAS and VAS scores significantly improved compared with preoperative values (P < .001) with no difference (P > .1) between groups. In the AB group the mean AOFAS score improved from 67 (range, 44-87) to 92 (range, 76-100) and the mean VAS score from 6.4 (range, 3-10) to 1.2 (range, 0-3). In the AI group the mean AOFAS score changed from 60 (range, 32-87) to 93 (range, 76-100) and the mean VAS score from 6.1 (range, 4-10) to 0.8 (range, 0-3). At the final follow-up 8 complications (40%) were recorded in the AB group. In the AI group 1 complication (5.3%) was observed (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Both the AB and AI techniques are suitable surgical options to treat chronic ankle instability providing excellent clinical results. However, the AB had a higher overall complication rate than the AI group, particularly involving a painful restriction of ankle plantarflexion and neuritis of the superficial peroneal nerve.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

All-inside repair of meniscal bucket handle tears: a retrospective study at mean 4-years follow-up evaluation

Bucket-handle tears represent approximately 10% of all meniscal tears. Despite the common treatment is subtotal meniscectomy, repair is technically feasible although complex, and represents a key strategy to avoid severe meniscal tissue loss that could accelerate joint degeneration over time. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the outcomes of arthroscopically-assisted bucket-handle tear repair, and to identify factors correlating with clinical results. Fifty-four patients affected by meniscal bucket handle tear were included in the present retrospective analysis and evaluated up to mean 4-years follow-up. All patients were treated by arthroscopic-assisted all-inside repair. The primary outcome was considered the need for a re-operation due to failure of meniscal repair. Patients were also evaluated by the following items: KOOS, Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC-subjective and Quadruple-VAS score. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify whether concurrent ACL reconstruction, side of the lesion, age at surgery and time from injury to repair could influence clinical outcome. Ten out 54 patients (18.5%) were considered failed and needed reoperation, mainly within one year from surgery. Overall, there was a significant increase in all clinical scores considered and patients were able to get back to previous sport activity level. Patients with concurrent ACL reconstruction presented a lower risk of failure (p=0.025). Patients with lateral meniscus repair showed better clinical outcome compared to medial meniscus. Timing from injury and age at surgery did not correlated with clinical outcome. Our series showed fair results in bucket handle repair up to middle term evaluation. Concomitant ACL reconstruction was associated with lower failure rate whereas lateral meniscus involvement was associated with higher functional scores at final follow-up evaluation.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic All-Inside Repair Versus Observation in Older Patients With Meniscus Root Tears

BACKGROUND

Meniscus root tears lead to de-tensioning of the meniscus, increased contact forces, and cartilage damage. Management of older patients with root tears is controversial and the efficacy of different treatment options is unclear.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of patients with moderate knee osteoarthritis who underwent an all-inside meniscus root repair technique versus nonoperative management for either medial or lateral meniscus root tears.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosed posterior meniscus root tear who underwent arthroscopic repair (AR: 30 knees) or nonoperative treatment with observation (O: 18 knees) were followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean follow-up, 4.4 years). The arthroscopic repair included all-inside sutures to reduce the root back to its remnant (reduction sutures), thereby re-tensioning the meniscus, and 1 mattress suture to strengthen the repair by reapproximating the construct to the posterior capsule. The data collected included the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm, Tegner, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores and conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

RESULTS

Medial meniscus root tears comprised 80.0% of the AR group and 77.8% of the O group. The average Kellgren-Lawrence grade was 2 in both groups. The baseline scores for the KOOS Symptoms subscale were lower for AR (50.2 ± 19.3) than for O (66.5 ± 16.1) (P = .003), as were the KOOS Knee-Related Quality of Life scores (AR, 26.7 ± 16.1; O, 39.6 ± 22.1) (P = .046). No differences were found between groups for the absolute values at follow-up except that follow-up Tegner scores were lower in the O group than in the AR group (P = .004). Significant improvements were seen in the AR group from baseline to ultimate follow-up in average KOOS subscale scores (P < .001), Lysholm scores (P < .001), Tegner scores (P = .0002), and VR-12 PCS scores (P < .001), whereas the O group had a significant improvement only in average KOOS Pain (P = .003), KOOS Function in Daily Living (P = .006), and VR-12 PCS (P = .038) scores. Compared with the O group, the AR group had a significantly larger improvement from baseline to follow-up in average KOOS Pain (P = .009), KOOS Symptoms (P = .029), and Lysholm scores (P = .016). During follow-up, 3.3% of the AR group underwent a TKA compared with 33.3% of the O group (P = .008). The hazard ratio of TKA conversion was 93.2% lower for the AR group compared with the O group (P = .013).

CONCLUSION

All-inside medial or lateral meniscus root repair showed improved functional outcomes and decreased TKA conversion rates compared with nonoperative treatment and may be considered as a treatment option for the management of meniscus root tears in older patients with moderate osteoarthritis.

Arthroscopic All-Inside Repair of Tear of the Anterior Horn of Discoid Lateral Meniscus

The anterior horn of lateral meniscus tear is usually repaired using outside-in technique. Although easy to perform, it was associated with several complications which may alter the outcome of the surgery. Here, we present a case of an adolescent girl presented with incomplete discoid lateral meniscus accompanied by tear of anterior horn. The tear was repaired using all-inside technique without any implants. We described the surgical technique and discussed the rationale.