Poster 344: The New "Terrible Triad": Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Concurrent Meniscal Lateral Root and Medial Ramp Repairs

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this paper was to compare patient reported outcomes (PROMs) between isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACLR) and ACLR with concomitant medial meniscus ramp and lateral meniscus root repairs and compare PROMs between different medial meniscus ramp and lateral meniscus root repair techniques. Methods: All patients with isolated (ISO) ACL reconstruction or ACL reconstruction with concomitant medial meniscus ramp and lateral meniscus root repairs with a minimum 2 years of follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study. A final total of 42 ISO-ACL patients were matched based upon age, sex, and body mass index to 40 in the “terrible triad” (TT) cohorts. Outcome measures were obtained from 32 patients in the ISO cohort, and 38 patients in the TT cohort. The PROMs used for this study include the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee, Cincinnati, Tegner, Lysholm, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) questionnaire forms. T tests and chi-square goodness of fit tests were used to compare the above PROMs both pre- and postoperatively within each cohort, and between cohorts and rates of revision or reoperation. Results: The preoperative and postoperative PROMs between patients in the isolated cohort and the triad cohort demonstrated no significant differences, except for the Physical category of the VR-12, in which the triad cohort had significantly higher results (p = 0.04) (Figure 1). Both the isolated cohort and the triad cohort reported significant differences between pre- and postoperative PROMs within their own cohorts. When comparing methods of surgery, including all-inside vs. inside-out for the medial meniscus repairs and tunnel versus no-tunnel for the lateral meniscus root repairs, no significant differences were found between postoperative PROMs. Additionally, no significant difference was found in revision or reoperative rates between the triad and isolated cohorts (p = 0.374) (Figure 2), the all-inside versus inside-out medial meniscus cohorts (p = 0.267), or the tunnel vs. no-tunnel lateral meniscus cohorts (p = 0.781). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in PROMs between isolated ACLR versus ACLR with concomitant medial meniscus ramp and lateral meniscus root repairs. While the complexity of the TT ACLR patients was more involved, PROMs and healing rates were similar and performing concurrent medial ramp and lateral root repairs at the time of ACLR should be considered.