Multiple ligament knee injuries: Clinical practice guidelines

Multiple ligament knee injuries involve tears of two or more of the four major knee ligament structures, and are commonly noted following knee dislocations. These devastating injuries are often associated with soft-tissue trauma, neurovascular deficit, and concomitant articular cartilage or meniscus tears. The complexity of presentation, and spectrum of treatment options, makes these injuries unique and extremely challenging to even the most experienced knee surgeons. A high level of suspicion, and a comprehensive clinical and radiological examination, is required to identify all injured structures. The current literature supports surgical management of these injuries, with cruciate reconstructions, and repair/augmented repair/ reconstruction of collateral ligaments. This review article analyses management principle of multiple ligament knee injuries, and formulates clinical practice guidelines with treatment algorithms essential to plan individualized management of these complex heterogeneous injuries.

Outcomes of Meniscal Repair versus Meniscectomy in Patients with Concomitant ACL and Bucket Handle Meniscus Tears (200)

Objectives: Bucket handle meniscus tears often present concurrently with tears of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). However, little is known regarding the influence of demographic factors on surgical decision-making, or on outcomes following treatment of bucket handle meniscus tears in ACL-deficient patients. Furthermore, no study has compared outcomes in this population between patients undergoing meniscectomy versus repair. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine if there is a difference in outcomes between patients presenting with concomitant ACL and bucket handle meniscus tears treated with meniscal repair versus meniscectomy. A secondary aim of this study was to discover if there is an association between the decision to perform a meniscus repair or meniscectomy based on demographic factors. Methods: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective study, we evaluated 62 patients presenting with ACL tear who were found to have a bucket handle meniscus tear preoperatively or at the time of ACL reconstruction. Of those, 30 patients underwent partial meniscectomy, while 32 underwent meniscal repair. Primary outcome measures included ACL and meniscal retear rates, as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Documented PROMs included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and ACL-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scores. Demographic and patient-specific factors evaluated included age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, and location of meniscus tear. Results: Of 62 patients presenting for ACL reconstruction with concomitant bucket handle meniscus tear, a total of 34 patients with greater than one year (mean 22.4 month) follow-up were included. 14 patients underwent repair, and 20 underwent meniscectomy. No significant differences were noted in IKDC (p = 0.36), delta IKDC (p = 0.18), SANE (p = 0.61), or ACL-RSI (p = 0.67) scores between the repair and meniscectomy groups at final follow-up. No significant differences were found in ACL (p = 1.00) or meniscus (p = 0.49) retear rates between the two groups. Younger age, lower BMI, and tear location (red-red zone) were significantly associated with the decision to perform meniscal repair over meniscectomy (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Among patients presenting with concomitant ACL and bucket handle meniscus tears, we found no difference in patient-reported outcomes or retear rates in patients undergoing meniscal repair versus meniscectomy. Demographic and patient-specific factors including age, BMI, and tear location may influence surgical decision-making when determining the optimal treatment of bucket handle meniscus tears in this population.

Articular Cartilage and Meniscus Risk Factors of Patient-Reported Outcomes 10 Years after ACL Reconstruction: A Multicenter Cohort Study (160)

Objectives: Articular cartilage and meniscal damage are commonly encountered and often treated at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Our understanding of how these injuries and their treatment relate to outcomes of ACLR is still evolving. The purpose of this study was to assess whether articular cartilage and meniscal variables are predictive of 10-year outcomes after ACLR. We hypothesized that articular cartilage lesions and meniscus tears/treatment would be predictors of the IKDC, KOOS (all 5 subscales), and Marx activity level at 10-year follow-up after ACLR. Methods: Between 2002 and 2008, 3273 ACLR subjects were prospectively enrolled and followed longitudinally with the IKDC, KOOS, and Marx activity score completed at entry, 2, 6, and 10 years. A logistic regression model was built incorporating variables from patient demographics, surgical technique, articular cartilage injuries, and meniscus tears/treatment to determine the risk factors of IKDC, KOOS, and Marx at 10 years. Results: We completed a minimum follow-up on 77% (2530/3273) of our cohort at 10 years. The cohort was 56% male with a median age of 23 years at the time of enrollment. Incidence of concomitant pathology at the time of surgery consisted of the following: articular cartilage (medial femoral condyle [MFC]-22%, lateral femoral condyle [LFC]-15%, medial tibial plateau [MTP]-4%, lateral tibial plateau [LTP]-11%, patella-18%, trochlear-8%) and meniscal (medial-37%, lateral-46%). Variables that were predictive of 10-year outcomes included articular cartilage damage in the patellofemoral and medial compartments and previous medial meniscus surgery (6% of knees) (Table). Medial and lateral meniscus tears and treatment at the time of ACLR were not associated with 10-year outcomes. Other variables that significantly influenced 10-year outcomes included sex, race, BMI, type of reconstruction (primary vs. revision), baseline outcome scores, and MCL pathology (5.5% of knees). Conclusions: Articular cartilage injury in the patellofemoral and medial compartments at the time of ACLR and a history of medial meniscus surgery prior to ACLR are associated with 10-year ACLR outcomes. However, meniscal tears/treatment at the time of ACLR did not predict 10-year outcomes.

Midterm Outcomes of Isolated Lateral Meniscus Tears in Young Patients (167)

Objectives: The current literature lacks evidence to guide treatment of isolated lateral meniscus tears in young patients. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to describe our institutional experience in young patients with lateral meniscus tear with regard to i) treatment trends in meniscectomy and repair ii) long-term patient reported and radiographic outcomes, and iii) failure rates and associated patient and treatment factors. Methods: Patients <26 years of age who underwent surgery for lateral meniscus tears between 2001 and 2017. Patients with ligamentous injury or prior surgeries in the same knee were excluded. Records were reviewed to obtain patient demographics, injury characteristics, surgical details, reoperation rates, repeat imaging, and patient outcome scores. Statistical analysis compared treatment trends over time. Patient reported outcomes (PROs), imaging outcomes, and failure rates were compared by treatment modality. Failure was defined as reoperation, symptomatic osteoarthritis, or IKDC <75. Simple logistic regressions were calculated to predict failure and IKDC based on treatment, type of tear, location of tear, or amount of meniscus removed. Results: 226 knees in 217 patients were identified with average clinical follow-up of 3.2 years. Our cohort consisted of 158 male patients, and average age was 17.4 years (7-25). 138 patients (144 knees) were treated with meniscectomy (partial to complete) (64%) and 79 patients (82 knees) were treated with repair (36%). Repair rates compared to meniscectomy (any degree) increased over time with 63% of lateral meniscus tears from 2013-2017 treated with repair compared to 23% from 2001 -2004 ( P = <.0001). IKDC scores in the meniscectomy group increased from 76.3 ± 9.1 pre-operatively to 97.2 ± 3.9 post-operatively ( P = <.0001) and increased in the repair group from 71.0 ± 11.5 pre-operatively to 97.4 ± 4.1 post-operatively ( P = <.0001).The change in IKDC score was greater in repair (26.0 ± 12.3) than meniscectomy (21.1 ± 9.8) ( P = .002). Reoperation rates in meniscectomy (20%) and repair (20%) were similar ( P = .910). Pre-operative IKDC scores were lower in the repair group ( P = .001), but final IKDC scores were similar ( P = 0.695). Symptomatic OA was noted in 17 patients in the meniscectomy group (22%) and 5 patients in the repair group (11%) ( P = .121). The failure rate was similar between meniscectomy (35%) and repair (28%) ( P = .307). Regression equations evaluating treatment modality, type and location of tear, and amount of meniscus removed did not reach significance in predicting IKDC or failure. Conclusions: In this cohort of young patients with isolated lateral meniscus tears, rate of repair increased over time. IKDC scores improved more in the repair group compared to the meniscectomy patients, however IKDC scores obtained at final follow-up were similar. Rates of symptomatic OA, reoperation, and failure were similar between groups. Treatment modality, type and location of tear, and amount of meniscus removed were not predictive of final IKDC or failure.