scholarly journals Meniscal Repair in Pediatric Populations: A Systematic Review of Outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596711984335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Liechti ◽  
David S. Constantinescu ◽  
Taylor J. Ridley ◽  
Jorge Chahla ◽  
Justin J. Mitchell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pediatric Population ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meniscal Tear ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Level Of Evidence

Background: Loss of meniscal tissue in the pediatric population can have long-term consequences on joint health, highlighting the importance of meniscal preservation in this group. Purpose: To systematically review reported knee outcome measures and complication rates after repair of meniscal tears in children and adolescents. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A review of the literature regarding the existing evidence for pediatric meniscal tear outcomes was performed through use of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (1980-present), and MEDLINE (1980-present). Included were articles in English that reported the outcomes of meniscal tears in the pediatric population (<18 years old) with a follow-up of more than 12 months. Clinical outcome scores were reviewed. Results: A total of 1003 total studies were initially retrieved, with 8 meeting the inclusion criteria. The review included 287 patients (165 male, 122 female), mean age 15.1 years (range, 4-18 years), with 301 meniscal tears (reported: 134 medial, 127 lateral, and 32 both medial and lateral, 8 location unspecified). Concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed in 52% (158/301) of meniscal repairs. The average reported postoperative Lysholm scores ranged from 85.4 to 96.3, and the average reported postoperative Tegner activity scores ranged from 6.2 to 8. Conclusion: Arthroscopic repair of a meniscal tear in the pediatric and adolescent population is an effective treatment option that has a low failure rate, enhances postoperative clinical outcomes, and preserves meniscal tissues.

Meniscus Repair in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Treatment Approaches, Meniscal Healing, and Outcomes

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (06) ◽  
pp. 490-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Márcio Balbinotti Ferrari ◽  
Colin P. Murphy ◽  
João Luiz Ellera Gomes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Meniscal Healing ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

AbstractAlthough the consequences of traumatic meniscus tears and the importance of meniscal repair are well-established in adults, the same cannot be said for the young population. Better evidence regarding the outcomes following traumatic meniscal tears in children would improve our understanding of this increasing pathology and help define important factors in deciding the best treatment option. A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, and MEDLINE PubMed databases. Inclusion criteria were as follows: studies reporting the outcomes of meniscal repair in patients 18 years old or younger, with a minimum mean follow-up of 12 months, Portuguese, Spanish, or English languages, and human studies including 10 or more patients. Our search identified 2,534 individual titles. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 studies were included, evaluating 287 patients with repaired meniscal tears. All eight studies were classified as level of evidence IV. The mean methodological index for nonrandomized studies score was 8.6 ± 1.4. Meniscal repair included all meniscal zones and tear patterns. Anterior cruciate ligament tear was the most common associated injury. The all-inside and inside-out techniques were predominantly reported. The majority of the patients reported good to excellent outcomes and had clinical signals of meniscal healing; meniscectomies following meniscal repair were performed in just 44 cases. In conclusion, meniscal tears in pediatrics are not uncommon. Repairs of this injury were associated with good to excellent outcomes in most patients, regardless of the injury pattern, zone, or technique. Reported complications were minimal; however, higher quality studies are needed to confirm the findings of this systematic review. This is a systematic review study with Level IV.

scholarly journals Return to Play After Isolated Meniscal Repairs in Athletes: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 232596712096209
Author(s):  
Erica R. Blanchard ◽  
Christopher J. Hadley ◽  
Eric D. Wicks ◽  
William Emper ◽  
Steven B. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Arthroscopic Technique ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Meniscal tears are a common knee injury. Isolated meniscal tears are less common; however, unaddressed tears can be troublesome, particularly for athletes. There is currently a lack of data in the literature on athletes returning to play after isolated meniscal repair. Purpose: To evaluate the return to play rate and time to return to play for athletes with isolated meniscal injuries. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane electronic databases was conducted to identify studies that reported the time and the rate of return to play in athletes after repair of isolated meniscal tears. Studies were excluded if there was a concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, if there was a meniscectomy instead of a meniscal repair, or if the study was a systematic review. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by 2 examiners. Results: Overall, 21 studies were included in this review. There were 355 athletes (358 knees) with a mean age of 22.5 years (range, 9-68 years). A sex breakdown was noted in 16 of the 21 (76.2%) studies with 224 men and 71 women. The specific repair technique was described in 259 (72.3%) knees. Of the total knees, 109 (30.4%) had an open repair, 128 (35.8%) had an inside-out arthroscopic technique repair, and 22 (6.1%) had an all-inside arthroscopic technique repair. Complications were addressed in 11 studies, with 13 out of 155 (8.4%) patients across the 11 articles having a postoperative complication. Of the total 355 patients, 295 (83.1%) returned to play, and 17 of these 21 (81.0%) articles reported the time it took for athletes to return to play, with a mean return of 8.7 months. Conclusion: The study results indicate that return to play rates after isolated meniscal repair are high, with an overall return to play rate of 83.1% and a mean return to play time of 8.7 months. However, the limited number of studies, particularly ones with larger patient numbers, highlights the need for further investigation regarding isolated meniscal repair in athletes.

scholarly journals Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596711877904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian T. Samuelsen ◽  
Nicholas R. Johnson ◽  
Mario Hevesi ◽  
Bruce A. Levy ◽  
Diane L. Dahm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meniscal Tear ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Inside Out ◽  
Bucket Handle ◽  
Repair Techniques

Background: There are limited data comparing the outcomes of all-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair techniques. Purpose: To assess failure rates and clinical outcomes after the surgical repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears utilizing either an all-inside or inside-out technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with bucket-handle meniscal tears undergoing all-inside or inside-out repair at a single institution between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. A total of 28 mensici repaired utilizing second-generation all-inside suturing devices and 42 menisci repaired using an inside-out technique were eligible for inclusion. Rigorous propensity matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, tear laterality, rim width, and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resulting in a total of 40 patients equally distributed between the 2 repair techniques for comparison. Retear-free survival as well as preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and physical examination findings were subsequently analyzed. Results: Twenty patients who underwent all-inside repair (14 male; mean age, 23.7 ± 6.7 years) were successfully propensity matched to 20 patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair (15 male; mean age, 22.5 ± 7.6 years), with a mean retear-free follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 2.5-7.4 years). Four (20%) all-inside repairs and 4 (20%) inside-out repairs failed over the course of follow-up ( P > .999), with a mean time to failure of 2.7 years (range, 1.3-4.4 years) and 5.0 years (range, 0.8-7.5 years), respectively ( P = .25). Increasing patient age trended toward a decreased clinical retear rate, independent of the repair technique (hazard ratio, 0.86; P = .056). There were no significant differences in the Tegner scores, IKDC scores, or range of motion between the groups as a whole or when subcategorizing by age, sex, body mass index, tear complexity, rim width, isolated versus concomitant ACLR, or medial- versus lateral-sided repair. There were no complications in the all-inside group, while there was a 10% rate of minor complications in the inside-out group ( P = .49). Conclusion: Overall, satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable at short-term to midterm follow-up with both inside-out and all-inside repair techniques of bucket-handle meniscal tears in rigorously matched patients with similar meniscal tear patterns.

Is Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Effective in Preventing Secondary Meniscal Tears and Osteoarthritis?

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 1699-1707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Sanders ◽  
Hilal Maradit Kremers ◽  
Andrew J. Bryan ◽  
Kristin M. Fruth ◽  
Dirk R. Larson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cartilage Damage ◽  
Meniscal Tear ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Surgical Reconstruction ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Initial Injury ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears may potentially prevent the development of secondary meniscal injuries and arthritis. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate the protective benefit of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) in preventing subsequent meniscal tears or arthritis, (2) determine if earlier ACLR (<1 year after injury) offers greater protective benefits than delayed reconstruction (≥1 year after injury), and (3) evaluate factors predictive of long-term sequelae after ACLR. The hypothesis was that the incidence of secondary meniscal tears, arthritis, and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) would be higher in patients treated nonoperatively after ACL tears than patients treated with surgical reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This retrospective study included a population-based incidence cohort of 964 patients with new-onset, isolated ACL tears between 1990 and 2000 as well as an age- and sex-matched cohort of 964 patients without ACL tears. A chart review was performed to collect information related to the initial injury, treatment, and outcomes. A total of 509 patients were treated with early ACLR, 91 with delayed ACLR, and 364 nonoperatively. All patients were retrospectively followed (range, 2 months to 25 years) to determine the development of subsequent meniscal tears, arthritis, or TKA. Results: At a mean follow-up of 13.7 years, patients treated nonoperatively after ACL tears had a significantly higher likelihood of developing a secondary meniscal tear (hazard ratio [HR], 5.4; 95% CI, 3.8-7.6), being diagnosed with arthritis (HR, 6.0; 95% CI, 4.3-8.4), and undergoing TKA (HR, 16.7; 95% CI, 5.0-55.2) compared with patients treated with ACLR. Similarly, patients treated with delayed ACLR had a higher likelihood of developing a secondary meniscal tear (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.2-6.9) and being diagnosed with arthritis (HR, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.4-11.4) compared with patients treated with early ACLR. Age >21 years at the time of injury, articular cartilage damage, and medial/lateral meniscal tears were predictive of arthritis after ACLR. Conclusion: Patients treated with ACLR have a significantly lower risk of secondary meniscal tears, symptomatic arthritis, and TKA when compared with patients treated nonoperatively after ACL tears. Similarly, early ACLR significantly reduces the risk of subsequent meniscal tears and arthritis compared with delayed ACLR.

scholarly journals The predictive factors that are associated with the number of sutures used during meniscal repair

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxiao Song ◽  
Dongyang Chen ◽  
Qi Xinsheng ◽  
Qing Jiang ◽  
Caiwei Xia
Keyword(s):  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Meniscal Tear ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Meniscus Repair ◽  
Meniscus Tear ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Surgical Data

Abstract PurposeTo investigate factors associated with the consumption of a large number of sutures during arthroscopic meniscus repair procedures.MethodsAll patients who received meniscal repair, with or without concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, in our hospital from January 2015 to December 2019 were included in the current study. Demographic data (sex, age, body mass index (BMI), and injury-to-surgery interval) and surgical data (the site of the tear, side of the meniscus, presence of an ACL rupture or not and the number of sutures) were retrospectively collected from our medical records. The number of sutures was divided into two groups (1–2 sutures versus > 2 sutures). The stitching process was implemented through an all-inside technique using a meniscal repair device (Fast-Fix; Smith & Nephew). According to the length and stability of the meniscal tear, one to seven sutures were used. Univariate analysis consisted of chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was then performed to adjust for confounding factors.ResultsA total of 242 patients, including 168 males and 57 females, was finally included. In the univariate analysis, we found that those patients who underwent meniscus repair within one month after meniscus tear were more likely to need fewer sutures than those who underwent surgery more than one month after injury (70/110 versus 59/115, p = 0.062). In total, 75/109 (68.8%) lateral meniscal tears were repaired with fewer sutures than medial (34/72, 47.2%) and bilateral meniscus injuries (20/44, 45.4%; p = 0.003). In the multivariate analysis, we found that the duration of injury (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.16–3.64, p = 0.013), presence of an ACL injury (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.97–7.21, p < 0.001) and the side of the meniscus (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14–0.65, p = 0.002) were associated with the number of sutures used during meniscal repair procedures.ConclusionsPatients who underwent meniscal repair within one month after meniscus tear, especially lateral menisci tears, were more likely to need fewer sutures.Study DesignCase-control study; level of evidence, 3.

Comparative Outcomes of Radial and Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tear Repair: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 2653-2660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabella T. Wu ◽  
Mario Hevesi ◽  
Vishal S. Desai ◽  
Christopher L. Camp ◽  
Diane L. Dahm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meniscal Tear ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Full Thickness ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Reoperation Rates ◽  
Bucket Handle

Background: Full-thickness radial meniscal tears render the meniscus nonfunctional and have historically been treated with partial meniscectomy. As preservative techniques evolve for radial repair, comparisons with other tear patterns are necessary to evaluate repair efficacy and prognosis. Purpose: To assess clinical outcomes and reoperation rates of radial meniscal repair and to compare them to bucket-handle meniscal repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Radial and bucket-handle meniscal tears without concurrent root injuries undergoing surgical repair at a single institution between 2007 and 2015 were analyzed, including both all-inside and inside-out suturing techniques. Propensity matching was performed on the basis of age at surgery, sex, meniscus laterality, body mass index (BMI), and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a comparison pool of 70 bucket-handle repairs. Reoperation-free survival rates and Tegner, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were analyzed. Results: Twenty-four patients (18 male, 6 female; mean age, 22.8 ± 11.9 years) who underwent repair of a radial meniscal tear were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (range, 2.0-6.3 years). Significant postoperative improvements in VAS scores at rest and with use and IKDC scores were noted postoperatively ( P < .001). Five patients (20.8%) required a reoperation. Subsequently, 18 patients with radial tears (mean age, 19.1 ± 9.1 years; 12 male; mean BMI, 27.0 ± 6.2 kg/m2; 3 medial; 11 ACLR) were propensity matched to 18 patients with bucket-handle tears (mean age, 20.8 ± 5.1 years; 13 male; mean BMI, 25.0 ± 3.5 kg/m2; 3 medial; 11 ACLR). The matched radial and bucket-handle groups demonstrated similar ( P = .17) reoperation-free survival rates at 2 years (88.9% and 94.4%, respectively) and 5 years (77.8% and 87.7%, respectively). VAS and IKDC scores improved significantly after surgery ( P < .001), with no difference noted between the groups ( P ≥ .17). Patients with radial and bucket-handle meniscal repairs achieved mean postoperative Tegner scores (6.6 and 6.6, respectively) not significantly different from their preinjury levels (6.9 and 6.7, respectively) ( P ≥ .32). Conclusion: Satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable for radial meniscal tear repair at short-term follow-up. In a robustly matched comparison, radial and bucket-handle meniscal tears demonstrate similar improvements in VAS and IKDC scores, restoration of preoperative Tegner scores, and acceptable reoperation rates. Full-thickness radial meniscal tears should be considered for repair.

Inside-Out Versus All-Inside Repair of Isolated Meniscal Tears: An Updated Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 234-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yale A. Fillingham ◽  
Jonathan C. Riboh ◽  
Brandon J. Erickson ◽  
Bernard R. Bach ◽  
Adam B. Yanke
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Standard Technique ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Active Population ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Inside Out

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.

scholarly journals The predictive factors that are associated with the number of sutures used during meniscal repair

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 ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Meniscus Repair ◽  
Meniscus Tear ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Surgical Data

Abstract Purpose To investigate factors associated with the consumption of a large number of sutures during arthroscopic meniscus repair procedures. Methods All patients who received meniscal repair, with or without concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, in our hospital from January 2015 to December 2019 were included in the current study. Demographic data (sex, age, body mass index (BMI), and injury-to-surgery interval) and surgical data (the site of the tear, side of the meniscus, presence of an ACL rupture or not and the number of sutures) were retrospectively collected from our medical records. The number of sutures was divided into two groups (1–2 sutures versus > 2 sutures). The stitching process was implemented through an all-inside technique using a meniscal repair device (Fast-Fix; Smith & Nephew). According to the length and stability of the meniscal tear, one to seven sutures were used. Univariate analysis consisted of chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was then performed to adjust for confounding factors. Results A total of 242 patients, including 168 males and 57 females, was finally included. In the univariate analysis, we found that those patients who underwent meniscus repair within one month after meniscus tear were more likely to need fewer sutures than those who underwent surgery more than one month after injury (70/110 versus 59/115, p=0.062). In total, 75/109 (68.8%) lateral meniscal tears were repaired with fewer sutures than medial (34/72, 47.2%) and bilateral meniscus injuries (20/44, 45.4%; p=0.003). In the multivariate analysis, we found that the duration of injury (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.16–3.64, p=0.013), presence of an ACL injury (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.97–7.21, p< 0.001) and the side of the meniscus (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14–0.65, p=0.002) were associated with the number of sutures used during meniscal repair procedures. Conclusions Patients who underwent meniscal repair within one month after meniscus tear, especially lateral menisci tears, were more likely to need fewer sutures. Study design Case-control study; level of evidence, 3.

scholarly journals Lateral Meniscal Oblique Radial Tears Are Common With ACL Injury: A Classification System Based on Arthroscopic Tear Patterns in 600 Consecutive Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712092173
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Krych ◽  
Matthew D. LaPrade ◽  
Corey S. Cook ◽  
Devin Leland ◽  
Lucas K. Keyt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Classification System ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meniscal Tear ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Posterior Horn ◽  
Meniscal Injury ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Operative Notes

Background: Meniscal root tears and ramp lesions have been rigorously characterized in recent literature. However, one of the most common lateral meniscal injuries identified with an acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) disruption, a posterior horn lateral meniscal oblique radial tear (LMORT), has not been thoroughly described. Purpose: To determine the incidence of all meniscal tears and, more specifically, the incidence of posterior horn LMORTs in a multicenter cohort of consecutive, acute ACL reconstructions. Additionally, the authors aimed to develop a new classification system to help guide treatment of posterior horn LMORTs. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort design was used to analyze 200 consecutive cases of acute ACL reconstruction from each of 3 different surgeons, for a total of 600 patients. The operative notes and intraoperative photos were analyzed to determine the incidence and laterality of all meniscal tears. A classification system based on tear characterization was then used to categorize tear patterns into similar groups. Results: A total of 396 (66%) of the 600 patients with acute ACL disruption had concomitant meniscal tears. Specifically, 187 (31%) had a lateral meniscal injury, 89 (15%) had a medial meniscal injury, and 122 (20%) had both medial and lateral meniscal injuries. The most common lateral meniscal tear was an LMORT; 71 (18%) patients with meniscal tears had a posterior horn LMORT. Overall, the incidence of ACL injury with a concomitant posterior horn LMORT was 12%. A classification was developed, which included type 1 tear (partial thickness <10 mm from the root attachment), type 2 tear (complete radial oblique tear that extended <10 mm from root), type 3 tear (incomplete LMORT that extended >10 mm from root), and type 4 tear (complete LMORT >10 mm from root). Conclusion: In 600 consecutive acute ACL reconstructions, the incidence of concomitant ACL injury with meniscal injury was 66%, and posterior horn LMORTs represented a large proportion of all meniscal tears (12%). A classification scheme was developed for posterior horn LMORTs to aid reporting and clinical decision making for these common tears.

scholarly journals Incidence and Risk Factors for Residual High-Grade Pivot Shift After ACL Reconstruction With or Without a Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110035
Author(s):  
Christophe Jacquet ◽  
Charles Pioger ◽  
Romain Seil ◽  
Raghbir Khakha ◽  
Sebastien Parratte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meniscal Tear ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Rotatory Knee Laxity

Background: Residual rotatory knee laxity at midterm follow-up after isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus ACLR with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) remains an issue. Purpose/Hypothesis: To evaluate the outcomes of ACLR with or without additional LET at a minimum 2-year follow-up in patients with preoperative high-grade pivot shift (PS). Our hypothesis was that the addition of LET would decrease the risk of secondary meniscal injury and the presence of residual high-grade PS at follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective analysis performed at 3 sports medicine centers identified 266 study patients; all had a high-grade PS (grade 2 or 3) preoperatively and underwent isolated ACLR with or without LET. Four different ACLR techniques were used: single-strand quadrupled semitendinosus (ST4) ACLR without LET (ST4 group; n = 55), ST4 with anatomic LET (ST4+LET group; n = 77), bone–patellar tendon and modified Lemaire LET (BTB+LET group; n = 43), and quadriceps tendon and modified Lemaire LET (QT+LET group; n = 91). At follow-up, we evaluated for the presence of high-grade (grade ≥2) PS. Preoperative meniscal tears and their treatment were recorded. Results: Overall, 185 (69.5%) patients had at least 1 meniscal tear at index surgery. The mean follow-up period was 44.3 months; 47 (17.7%) patients had a new meniscal tear and 64 (24%) patients had a high-grade PS at follow-up. Compared with meniscal repair, significant predictors for high-grade PS at follow-up were meniscectomy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.65 [95% CI, 1.19-5.63]; P = .02) and nonrepair of preoperative meniscal tear (OR = 3.26 [95% CI, 1.27-9.43]; P = .007). The appearance of a new symptomatic meniscal tear was the strongest significant predictor of high-grade PS at follow-up (OR = 4.31 [95% CI, 2.31-8.06]; P < .001). No significant correlation was observed between the addition of LET and the presence of high-grade PS at follow-up. Conclusion: In the current study, 1 in 4 patients with high-grade PS before ACLR with or without LET was at risk of residual rotatory knee laxity at mean 44-month follow-up, regardless of the technique used. Repairing a pre-existing meniscal lesion was more effective than performing LET to decrease the presence of a high-grade PS at follow-up.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document