The all-inside meniscal repair technique has less risk of injury to the lateral geniculate artery than the inside-out repair technique when suturing the lateral meniscus

Abstract 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 Next, the needle is withdrawn to the synovial margin of the meniscus and is reinserted, exiting the femoral surface of the other side of the torn meniscus.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.

Download Full-text

Incidence and Healing Rates of Meniscal Tears in Patients Undergoing Repair During the First Stage of 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546519878421 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 47 (14) ◽

pp. 3389-3395 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Nicholas N. DePhillipo ◽

Travis J. Dekker ◽

Zachary S. Aman ◽

David Bernholt ◽

W. Jeffrey Grantham ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽

Cruciate Ligament ◽

Meniscal Repair ◽

Posterior Root ◽

Meniscal Tears ◽

Meniscus Root ◽

Repair Technique ◽

Anterior Cruciate ◽

Acl Deficient ◽

Inside Out

Background: Meniscal tears, including tears at the root attachment, have been associated with tears of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in both primary and revision settings. However, there is a paucity of literature reporting the healing rates of meniscal repair during 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose: To evaluate the healing rates of meniscal repairs performed during 2-stage revision ACLR in ACL-deficient knees and to report the incidence of meniscus root tears in patients undergoing primary ACLR as compared with revision ACLR. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients who underwent primary and revision ACLR by a single surgeon were retrospectively identified. Revision ACLRs were grouped according to 1- or 2-stage ACLR. Meniscal tears were grouped according to laterality (medial, lateral) and location of tears. Meniscal repair technique was recorded, including transtibial or inside-out. Meniscal repair healing was assessed via second-look arthroscopy at the time of second-stage revision ACLR. Results: There were 1168 patients identified who underwent ACLR: 851 primary and 317 revision procedures. Sixty-four patients underwent meniscal repair during first-stage bone grafting in ACL-deficient knees, with an overall healing rate of 86%. The healing rates were 82.3% for meniscus root tears via the transtibial repair technique and 92.4% for meniscal peripheral tears via the inside-out repair technique. Meniscus root tears had overall incidences of 15.5% and 26.2% in primary and revision ACLRs, respectively. The incidence of lateral meniscus posterior root tears was approximately 4 times higher than of medial meniscus posterior root tears in both primary (12.2% vs 3.2%) and revision (20.5% vs 5.6%) ACLRs. Conclusion: A high incidence of meniscus root tears was found in patients undergoing revision ACLRs as compared with primary ACLRs. Meniscal repairs have a high rate of healing and success when performed during the first stage of revision ACLR in ACL-deficient knees.

Download Full-text

Which factors are associated with the prevalence of meniscal repair?

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-021-04107-w ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoxiao Song ◽

Dongyang Chen ◽

Xinsheng Qi ◽

Qing Jiang ◽

Caiwei Xia

Keyword(s):

Cruciate Ligament ◽

Demographic Data ◽

Meniscal Tear ◽

Univariate Analysis ◽

Lateral Meniscus ◽

Meniscal Repair ◽

Acl Injury ◽

Partial Meniscectomy ◽

Meniscus Tear ◽

Confounding Factors

Abstract Purpose To investigate the potential factors associated with the prevalence of meniscal repair Methods Patients who received partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair in our institution from Jan 2015 to Dec 2019 were included in current study. The inclusion criteria were (1) meniscus tear treated using meniscectomy or repair, (2) with or without concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, (3) not multiligamentous injury. Demographic data, including sex, age, body mass index (BMI), injury-to-surgery interval and intra-articular factors such as the location of injury, medial or lateral, ACL rupture or not and the option of procedure (partial meniscectomy or repair) were documented from medical records. Univariate analysis consisted of chi-square. Multivariate logistic regression was then performed to adjust for confounding factors. Results 592 patients including 399 males and 193 females with a mean age of 28.7 years (range from 10 to 75 years) were included in current study. In the univariate analysis, male (p = 0.002), patients aged 40 years or younger (p < 0.001), increased weight (p = 0.010), Posterior meniscus torn (0.011), concurrent ACL ruputure (p < 0.001), lateral meniscus (p = 0.039) and early surgery (p < 0.001) were all associated with the prevalence of meniscal repair. However, After adjusting for confounding factors, we found that age (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17 - 0.68, p = 0.002), ACL injury (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.97 – 7.21, p < 0.001), side of menisci (OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.43 – 7.55, p = 0.005), site of tear (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07 – 0.32, p < 0.001), and duration of injury (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28 – 0.82, p = 0.008) were associated with the prevalence of meniscus repair. Conclusions Meniscal tear in aged patients especially those with concomitant ACL injury is likely to be repaired. Additionally, in order to increase the prevalence of repair and slow down progression of OA, the surgical procedure should be performed within two weeks after meniscus tear especially when the tear is located at lateral meniscal posterior. Study design Case-control study; level of evidence, 3.

Download Full-text

Increased Construct Stiffness With Meniscal Repair Sutures and Devices Increases the Risk of Cheese-Wiring During Biomechanical Load-to-Failure Testing

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/23259671211015674 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. 232596712110156

Author(s):

Sebastian Müller ◽

Tanja Schwenk ◽

Michael de Wild ◽

Dimitris Dimitriou ◽

Claudio Rosso

Keyword(s):

Characteristic Curve ◽

Meniscal Repair ◽

Suture Fixation ◽

Contributing Factors ◽

Mode Of Failure ◽

Load To Failure ◽

Pull Through ◽

Optimal Stiffness ◽

The Impact ◽

Inside Out

Background: Cheese-wiring, the suture that cuts through the meniscus, is a well-known issue in meniscal repair. So far, contributing factors are neither fully understood nor sufficiently studied. Hypothesis/Purpose: To investigate whether the construct stiffness of repair sutures and devices correlates with suture cut-through (cheese-wiring) during load-to-failure testing. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: In 131 porcine menisci, longitudinal bucket-handle tears were repaired using either inside-out sutures (n = 66; No. 0 Ultrabraid, 2-0 Orthocord, 2-0 FiberWire, and 2-0 Ethibond) or all-inside devices (n = 65; FastFix360, Omnispan, and Meniscal Cinch). After cyclic loading, load-to-failure testing was performed. The mode of failure and construct stiffness were recorded. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to define the optimal stiffness threshold for predicting meniscal repair failure by cheese-wiring. The 2-tailed t test and analysis of variance were used to test significance. Results: Loss of suture fixation was the most common mode of failure in all specimens (58%), except for the Omnispan, which failed most commonly because of anchor pull-through. The Omnispan demonstrated the highest construct stiffness (30.8 ± 3.5 N/mm), whereas the Meniscal Cinch (18.0 ± 8.8 N/mm) and Ethibond (19.4 ± 7.8 N/mm) demonstrated the lowest construct stiffness. The Omnispan showed significantly higher stiffness compared with the Meniscal Cinch ( P < .001) and Ethibond ( P = .02), whereas the stiffness of the Meniscal Cinch was significantly lower compared with that of the FiberWire ( P = .01), Ultrabraid ( P = .04), and FastFix360 ( P = .03). While meniscal repair with a high construct stiffness more often failed by cheese-wiring, meniscal repair with a lower stiffness failed by loss of suture fixation, knot slippage, or anchor pull-through. Meniscal repair with a stiffness >26.5 N/mm had a 3.6 times higher risk of failure due to cheese-wiring during load-to-failure testing (95% CI, 1.4-8.2; P < .0001). Conclusion: Meniscal repair using inside-out sutures and all-inside devices with a higher construct stiffness (>26.5 N/mm) was more likely to fail through suture cut-through (cheese-wiring) than that with a lower stiffness (≤26.5 N/mm). Clinical Relevance: This is the first study investigating the impact of construct stiffness on meniscal repair failure by suture cut-through (cheese-wiring).

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Inside-out Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Multiligament Reconstruction in the Knee

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546517698944 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 45 (9) ◽

pp. 2098-2104 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Jorge Chahla ◽

Chase S. Dean ◽

Lauren M. Matheny ◽

Justin J. Mitchell ◽

Mark E. Cinque ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Failure Rate ◽

Meniscal Repair ◽

Postoperative Outcome ◽

Control Group ◽

Failure Rates ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Outcome Scores ◽

Inside Out ◽

Repair Group

Background: Limited evidence exists for meniscal repair outcomes in a multiligament reconstruction setting. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes and failure rates of meniscal repair in patients who underwent multiligament reconstruction compared with patients who underwent multiligament reconstruction but lacked meniscal tears. The authors hypothesized that the outcomes of meniscal repair associated with concomitant multiligament reconstruction would significantly improve from preoperatively to postoperatively at a minimum of 2 years after the index surgery. Secondarily, they hypothesized that this cohort would demonstrate similar outcomes and failure rates compared with the cohort that did not have meniscal lesions at the time of multiligament reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Inclusion criteria for the study included radiographically confirmed skeletally mature patients of at least 16 years of age who underwent multiligamentous reconstruction of the knee without previous ipsilateral osteotomy, intra-articular infections, or intra-articular fractures. Patients were included in the experimental group if they underwent inside-out meniscal suture repair with concurrent multiligament reconstruction. Those included in the control group (multiligament reconstruction without a meniscal tear) underwent multiligament reconstruction but did not undergo any type of meniscal surgery. Lysholm, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form–12 physical component summary and mental component summary, Tegner activity scale, and patient satisfaction scores were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. The failure of meniscal repair was defined as a retear of the meniscus that was confirmed arthroscopically. Results: There were 43 patients (16 female, 27 male) in the meniscal repair group and 62 patients (25 female, 37 male) in the control group. Follow-up was obtained in 93% of patients with a mean of 3.0 years (range, 2.0-4.7 years). There was a significant improvement between all preoperative and postoperative outcome scores ( P < .05) for both groups. The meniscal repair group had significantly lower preoperative Lysholm and Tegner scores ( P = .009 and P = .02, respectively). There were no significant differences between any other outcome scores preoperatively. The failure rate of the meniscal repair group was 2.7%, consisting of 1 symptomatic meniscal retear. There was no significant difference in any postoperative outcome score at a minimum 2-year follow-up between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Good to excellent patient-reported outcomes were reported for both groups with no significant differences in outcomes between the cohorts. Additionally, the failure rate for inside-out meniscal repair with concomitant multiligament reconstruction was low, regardless of meniscus laterality and tear characteristics. The use of multiple vertical mattress sutures and the biological augmentation resulting from intra-articular cruciate ligament reconstruction tunnel reaming may be partially responsible for the stability of the meniscal repair construct and thereby contribute to the overall improved outcomes and the low failure rate of meniscal repair, despite lower preoperative Lysholm and Tegner scores in the meniscal repair group.

Download Full-text

A Useful MRI Classification for Symptomatic Discoid Lateral Meniscus

Knee Surgery and Related Research ◽

10.1186/s43019-021-00108-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 33 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Eui Yub Jung ◽

Seongmin Jeong ◽

Sun-Kyu Kim ◽

Sung-Sahn Lee ◽

Dong Jin Ryu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Lateral Meniscus ◽

Meniscal Repair ◽

Discoid Lateral Meniscus ◽

Resonance Imaging ◽

Mri Findings ◽

Signal Change ◽

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽

Arthroscopic Procedures ◽

Group 1

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study is to classify the discoid lateral meniscus (DLM) according to the signal and shape in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and to provide information not only in diagnosis but also in treatment. Materials and Methods We reviewed 162 cases who diagnosed with DLM by MRI and underwent arthroscopic procedures from April 2010 to March 2018. Three observers reviewed MRI findings of all cases and predicted arthroscopic tear using three MRI criteria (criterion 1,2 and 3). Among three criteria, the criterion that most accurately predicts arthroscopic tear was selected. Using this criterion, the cases of predicted tear were named group 1. In addition, group 1 was divided into three subgroups (group 1a, 1b and 1c) by deformation or displacement on MRI and arthroscopic type of tear and procedures were analyzed according to these subgroups. Results The intra-meniscal signal change itself (criterion 3) on MRI showed the highest agreement with the arthroscopic tear. No meniscal deformation and displacement on MRI (group 1a) showed no specific type of tear and more cases of meniscal saucerization. The meniscal deformation on MRI (group 1b) showed more simple horizontal tears and more cases of meniscal saucerization. The meniscal displacement on MRI (group 1c) showed more peripheral tears and more cases of meniscal repair and subtotal meniscectomy. Comparing arthroscopic type of tear and type of arthroscopic procedure between three subgroups, there were significant differences in three groups (P < .05). Conclusions Intra-meniscal signal change itself on MRI is the most accurate finding to predict arthroscopic tear in symptomatic DLM. In addition, subgroup analysis by deformation or displacement on MRI is helpful to predict the type of arthroscopic tear and procedures.

Download Full-text