Abstract
BackgroundMeniscal repair using all-inside devices has garnered popularity compared to inside-out repair, yet few studies directly compare the two techniques in terms meniscal healing rates, surgical time, patient outcomes and incidence of complications. MethodsA systematic literature review was performed using the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases. English-language studies comparing all-inside and inside-out arthroscopic meniscal repair techniques directly were included. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with at least 10 patients in each treatment arm were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed effect (when I2 < 50%) or random effects model (I2 ≥ 50%). ResultsA total of 1042 studies were identified with seven being sui for inclusion (n = 505 patients). These comprised of one RCT two prospective and four retrospective, comparative, observational studies. Meta-analyses demonstrated that there was a significant reduction in operating time favouring all-inside repair (ratio of means [ROM] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–0.79; p = 0.0002) based on 3 studies (n = 208 patients). Based on 5 studies (n = 370 patients), there was no significant difference in meniscal healing rates between the groups (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.52–3.10; p = 0.61). Nerve injury was more common after inside-out repair. There was a 85% reduction in the odds of nerve injury with the all-inside technique (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05–0.47; p = 0.0013). A qualitative data analysis suggested no difference in functional outcomes between the two techniques. ConclusionsAll-inside meniscal repair is associated with reduced operative time and a lower odds of nerve injury complications compared to inside-out repair, without compromising meniscal healing or functional results.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call