Simultaneous Bicompartmental Bucket Handle Injury Associated With a Chronic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Case Report and Literature Review

Introduction: Simultaneously locked bucket handle injury of both menisci is a rare phenomenon. Clinically the knee is locked in flexion with pain in both joint lines. It has a high association rate with instability generated by an anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL). There are a few reports regarding this association or without any associated injury treated either in one-stage or two-stage surgery.Objetive: To report a patient with a simultaneous bicompartmental locked bucket handle, highlighting the challenges of the surgical technique and a literature review.Case Report: We present the case of a 42-year-old male with a simultaneous bicompartmental locked bucket handle injury associated with chronic ACL deficiency. Treated in one stage by bilateral partial meniscectomy and ACL reconstruction. We discuss the MRI findings, treatment options and performed an up-to date review.Conclusions: Although partial meniscectomy is a common procedure, when performed in an unusual patient and in the absence of therapeutic guidelines or consensus when dealing with this association, an appropriate preoperative plan should be followed. This case provides a perioperative approach focused on a review of the most recent literature.

ACL Injuries and Meniscal Lesion: Hand in Hand?

Objective: To assess the incidence, nature and pattern of meniscal tear in ACL injury. Methodology: A retrospective study was conducted among the patients who were admitted and treated for ACL tear in Saveetha Medical And College And Hospital over a 2-year period from August 2019-August 2021. There were 52 patients admitted and treated for the same. The case records of each of the patients were reviewed to find the incidence of meniscal lesion in ACL tear and were then analyzed using appropriate statistical tests. Results: 52 patients with ACL tear were reviewed in this study. ACL tear was most commonly reported in younger age group of 20-29 (46.15%). Out of which, 19(36.54%) patients had meniscal tears. About 9(47.37%) patients had lateral meniscus tear, 6(31.58%) had medial meniscus tear and 4(21.05%) had bilateral meniscal tear. It was seen that bucket handle injury (n=12) was the most common meniscus tear overall. Radial tear was most specifically common in bilateral meniscus injury (N=4). Conclusion: Meniscal tears are the most common intra articular lesions associated with ACL tear. It was most commonly reported in the age group of 20-29. We found that the incidence of lateral meniscal tear was significantly higher in the patients rather than medial meniscal tear. Bucket handle injury was the most commonly reported tear in meniscal injury. Therefore, the surgeon needs to equip himself with the necessary meniscal repair instruments in his armamentarium

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.

Surgical Outcomes after Bucket Handle Meniscus Repairs: analysis of a large contained cohort study

Objectives: Comprising approximately 10% of all mensiscus tears, bucket-handle meniscus tears are large longitudinal vertical meniscus tears that have an attached fragment flipped into the intercondylar notch. Meniscectomy would often result in significant meniscal loss and increased joint loading. Alternatively, meniscus repair attempts to restore the function of the meniscus and aims to preserve joint mechanics. The objective of this observational data-only study is to evaluate the long-term risk of subsequent ipsilateral knee surgery in patients who underwent a bucket handle meniscus repair and assess risk factors associated with subsequent knee surgical intervention. Methods: We performed an electronic health records search for all patients who underwent arthroscopic knee meniscal repairs from 2011 to 2018. Natural language processing was used to search for terms of interest in the long operative notes to determine if these surgeries were performed for bucket handle meniscus tears. These patients comprised our initial cohort. Study subjects were followed for at least one year and up to five years with censoring at death, membership disenrollment, or 12/31/2019. Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes (i.e., subsequent operative procedures, deep surgical site infections, and deep venous thrombosis) were evaluated via a database review. Descriptive statistics were employed. Results: The median follow-up time was 4.2 years (interquartile range [IQR] 2.7-5.0 years). A total of 1353 patients underwent meniscus repair surgery for a bucket-handle meniscus tear. The median age was 24 years (IQR 17-34). During the follow-up period, 492 subsequent ipsilateral procedures were performed in 272 (20.1%) patients. 59 (4.3%) patients underwent a subsequent repeat meniscus repair and 164 (12.1%) patients underwent a subsequent meniscectomy. The median time to first procedure was 41.1 months (IQR 23.3-60 months). Younger age and lower BMI were significant risk factors for having subsequent surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.04, 95% Confidence Interval [95%CI] 1.02-1.05, and aOR 1.60, 95%CI 1.09-2.35, respectively). Patients undergoing concomitant ACL reconstruction had a lower risk of undergoing subsequent surgery (aOR 0.66, 95%CI 0.50-0.88). Conclusions: This is the largest reported contained patient cohort study on outcomes after bucket-handle meniscus repair. 20% of patients underwent repeat surgery during the follow-up time period with 4.3% experiencing a subsequent repeat meniscus repair and 12% experiencing a subsequent meniscectomy. Risk factors for subsequent surgery include younger age and lower BMI. Concomitant ACL reconstruction at time of bucket-handle meniscus repair reduced the risk of subsequent reoperation.

What Is the Failure Rate After Arthroscopic Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Meniscal repair has become the treatment of choice for meniscal tears, especially in the subset of bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs). However, a comprehensive estimate of the corresponding failure rate is not available, thus maintaining doubts about the healing potential of these tears. Furthermore, a wide range of factors to predict high failure rates have been reported but with conflicting evidence. Purpose: To determine the failure rate after arthroscopic repair of BHMTs as reported in the literature, compare this with the failure rate of simple meniscal tears extracted from the same studies, and analyze the influence of factors previously reported to be predictive of meniscal repair failure. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers using principal bibliographic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). After a stepwise exclusion process, 38 articles met the inclusion criteria. Failure rate data were analyzed with a random-effects proportional meta-analysis (weighted for individual study size), and forest plots were constructed to determine any statistically significant differences between BHMTs versus simple tears (longitudinal, radial, or horizontal), medial versus lateral BHMTs, isolated procedures versus repairs with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and tears in red-red versus red-white zones. Moreover, a meta-regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of patient age and sex, suture technique (in-out or all-inside), time from injury to surgery, mean number of stitches, and length of follow-up on failure rates. Results: The pooled failure rate was 14.8% (95% CI, 11.3%-18.3%; I2 = 77.2%). A total of 17 studies provided failure rates of both BHMT repairs (46/311 repairs) and simple tear repairs (54/546 repairs), demonstrating a significantly higher failure rate for BHMT repairs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.05-2.15; I2 = 0%; P = .03). Medial BHMT repairs (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.25-3.01; I2 = 0%; P = .003) and isolated repairs (RR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.15-2.72; I2 = 0%; P = .009) had statistically higher risk of failure, but no statistically significant difference was found between tears in red-red versus red-white zones. Among the other factors evaluated with meta-regression, only the mean number of stitches showed a statistically significant effect on failure rates. Conclusion: Based on the currently available literature, this systematic review provides a reasonably comprehensive analysis of failure rate after arthroscopic BHMT repair; failure is estimated to occur in 14.8% of cases. Medial tears and isolated repairs were the 2 major predictors of failure.