All-inside Meniscal Repair Devices Research Articles

Biomechanical Characteristics of All-Suture Meniscal Repair Devices Compared With PEEK-Anchored Devices and Inside-Out Suture for Meniscal Repair: A Porcine Study.

Recently, all-suture, all-inside meniscal repair devices-including devices containing flat sutures or tapes-have been introduced. Similar to those in suture anchors, these modifications may have different performance characteristics than conventional sutures and polyether ether ketone (PEEK)-anchored devices. To compare the biomechanical characteristics of all-suture meniscal repair devices with those of a conventional PEEK-anchored device and an inside-out meniscal suture construct. Controlled laboratory study. A total of 48 adult porcine menisci with simulated bucket-handle tears were included. Single-device repairs were performed with the SuperBall Meniscal Repair System, FiberStitch, and FAST-FIX 360 with 2 PEEK anchors, and a vertical mattress inside-out suture repair was performed using a Ti-Cron No. 2-0 braided polyethylene terephthalate suture. All specimens were preloaded (10 N) and cycled 200 times (between 10 and 50 N). Specimens surviving cyclic loading were then destructively tested. Endpoints included maximum failure load, stiffness, cyclic displacement, and failure mode. The goal was 12 successful tests in each group. Metrics between groups were compared using analysis of variance with post hoc tests to control for multiple comparisons. The SuperBall (108.9 N) was significantly stronger than the FAST-FIX 360 (67.3 N) and Ti-Cron (75.2 N), and the FiberStitch (102.8 N) was significantly stronger than the FAST-FIX 360 (P≤ .01 for all). Cyclic stiffness increased during cyclic loading for all constructs (P < .001). The Ti-Cron was significantly stiffer than the SuperBall during 5 to 200 cycles (P < .001). Cyclic displacement significantly increased in all constructs during cycling (P < .001) but did not differ between devices. Failure mode varied by device: the Ti-Cron repairs failed because of suture breakage, the SuperBall and FAST-FIX 360 failed at the anchor, and the FiberStitch showed both failure modes. The all-suture, all-inside meniscal repair devices demonstrated superior strength to the PEEK-anchored device and the classic inside-out suture meniscal repair but no statistically significant difference in cyclic displacement.

The Risk of Iatrogenic Posterior Neurovascular Injuries in Lateral Meniscal Repair Based on the Standard Arthroscopic Knee Position: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.

Repair of the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus using an all-inside meniscal repair device involves the risk of iatrogenic posterior neurovascular injuries. Previous studies that have evaluated this risk were based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the knee in 30° of flexion and used landmarks that are impractical in the actual operative situation. To use an MRI model simulating actual knee arthroscopic conditions to (1) compare the potential risk of injuries related to the lateral border of the posterior lateral meniscus root (LMR) through the anterolateral versus anteromedial portal and (2) establish "safe" and "danger" zones to reduce the possibility of injuries to posterior neurovascular structures when performing lateral meniscal repair in relation to the lateral border of the posterior LMR. Descriptive laboratory study. Using 29 axial MRI scans of knees in the figure-of-4 position with joint fluid dilatation at the level of the lateral meniscus, direct lines were drawn to simulate a straight all-inside meniscal repair device deployed from the anterolateral and anteromedial portals to the lateral border of the posterior LMR, extending 14 mm beyond the joint capsule. If the line passed through or touched a posterior neurovascular structure, a risk of iatrogenic injuries was noted, and measurements were made to determine the safe zone in relation to the lateral border of the posterior LMR. Repairing the lateral meniscus through the anterolateral portal in relation to the lateral border of the posterior LMR resulted in a significantly greater risk of posterior neurovascular injuries compared with repairing through the anteromedial portal, with injury incidences of 68.97% and 10.35%, respectively (P = .001). The safe zones of lateral meniscal repair through the anterolateral and anteromedial portals were 4.15 ± 1.87 and 6.57 ± 0.98 mm, respectively, beyond the lateral border of the posterior LMR. The risk of posterior neurovascular injuries when repairing posterior lateral meniscal tissue was found to be significantly greater through the anterolateral portal compared with the anteromedial portal. Surgeons can use the safe zones as defined in this study to decrease the risk of iatrogenic posterior neurovascular injuries during arthroscopic lateral meniscal repair.

Poster 265: The Risk of Iatrogenic Posterior Neurovascular Injury in Lateral Meniscal Repair Based on Real Arthroscopic Position: An MRI Study

Objectives: Posterior horn of lateral meniscal repair using an all-inside meniscal repair device involves a risk of iatrogenic posterior neurovascular injury. Some studies have evaluating the injury risk in this area but most were based on preoperative MRIs and landmarks which are difficult to clearly see under actual arthroscopic surgery. To our knowledge, there have been no studies to date evaluating the risk of injury based on MRIs with the knee in the standard operational figure-of-4 position with joint dilatation in arthroscopic lateral meniscal repair related to the lateral border of the lateral meniscal root which is easy to identify during surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the risk of posterior neurovascular injury and establish the safe and danger zones in repairing the lateral meniscus through the anterolateral and anteromedial portals in relation to the medial and lateral borders of the lateral meniscal root (LMR) using standard operational figure-of-4 position with joint dilatation MRIs. Methods: This study was descriptive laboratory study. Using 29 axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies of knees in the figure-of-4 position with joint fluid dilatation at the level of the lateral meniscus, direct lines were drawn to simulate a straight all-inside meniscal repair device deployed from the anteromedial and anterolateral portals to the medial and lateral borders of the LMR extending 14 mm beyond the joint capsule. If the line passed through or touched the posterior neurovascular structure, a risk of iatrogenic injury was noted, and measurements were made to determine the safe zones in relation to the medial or lateral border of the LMR. Results: Repairing the lateral meniscus through the anterolateral portal in relation to the lateral border of the LMR had a significantly greater risk of posterior neurovascular injury than repairing through the anteromedial portal, of which the incidences were 68.97% and 10.35%, respectively (p-value = 0.001). The “safe zones” of lateral meniscal repair in relation to the lateral border of the LMR through the anterolateral and anteromedial portals were 4.15 ± 1.87 mm and 6.57 ± 0.98 mm lateral to the lateral border of the LMR, respectively. Conclusions: Our study found a risk of iatrogenic posterior neurovascular injury when repairing the posterior lateral meniscus tissue through both the anterolateral and anteromedial portals in relation to both the lateral and medial borders of the LMR, with repairs through the anterolateral portal having greater risk than through the anteromedial portal. To reduce this risk, the surgeon can use the “safe zones” as described in this study to decrease the potential risk of iatrogenic posterior neurovascular injury during arthroscopic lateral meniscal repair. Clinical Relevance: Iatrogenic injury is always a concern in any surgery, and the results of this study can be a guide to reducing iatrogenic posterior neurovascular injury during posterior horn of lateral meniscal repair.

A Comparison of All-inside and Inside-out Meniscal Repair in Elite Athletes

Background: The popularization of all-inside (AI) meniscal repair devices has led to a shift away from the historical gold standard of inside-out (IO) meniscal repair without comparative studies to support the change. Purpose: To compare the failure rate and time to failure of AI and IO meniscal repair performed in elite athletes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all professional and national- and international-level amateur athletes who underwent meniscal repair, with a minimum of 2-year follow-up between January 2013 and September 2019. Meniscal repair was classified as AI or IO depending on the surgical technique performed. Treatment failure was defined as patients having to undergo subsequent surgery to address a persistent meniscal tear after repair. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine if meniscal repair failure rates differed by the location and technique of meniscal repair. Models were controlled for known risk factors such as age, sex, sport, and concurrent cruciate ligament reconstruction. Results: A total of 192 (135 lateral and 57 medial) meniscal repairs were performed in elite athletes during the study period. Overall, 41 (21%) meniscal repairs met the criteria for failure. Medial meniscal tears repaired with the AI technique failed at a significantly higher rate (18/31 [58%]) than medial meniscal tears repaired with the IO technique (6/26 [23%]) or lateral meniscal tears repaired with the AI (9/76 [12%]) or IO (8/59 [14%]) technique (P < .001). Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed that a medial meniscal tear repaired with the AI technique had an almost 8 times greater hazard of failure than a lateral meniscal tear repaired with the AI technique (P < .001). At 1 year postoperatively, 8% of lateral meniscal repairs had failed (regardless of technique), while medial meniscal tears failed at a rate of 16% with the IO technique and 42% with the AI technique. By 2 years, 53% of medial meniscal tears repaired with the AI technique had failed, and by 5 years, 63% had failed. Conclusion: AI repair of medial meniscal tears led to a higher rate of failure than IO repair of medial or lateral meniscal tears in elite athletes. Medial meniscal repair failed at a higher rate than lateral meniscal repair.

Effectivity of the Outside-In Pie-Crusting Technique and an All-Inside Meniscal Repair Device in the Repair of Ramp Lesions

Ramp lesions are characteristic medial meniscus injuries seen in anterior cruciate ligament–injured knees. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries combined with ramp lesions increase the amount of anterior tibial translation and tibial external rotation. Therefore, the diagnosis and treatment of ramp lesions have received increasing attention. However, ramp lesions can be difficult to diagnose on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Additionally, ramp lesions are difficult to observe and treat intraoperatively in the posteromedial compartment. Although good results have been reported with the use of a suture hook through the posteromedial portal in the treatment of ramp lesions, the complexity and difficulty of the technique are further problems. The outside-in pie-crusting technique is a simple procedure that can enlarge the medial compartment and facilitate the observation and repair of ramp lesions. After this technique, ramp lesions can be properly sutured, using an all-inside meniscal repair device, without damaging the surrounding cartilage. A combination of the outside-in pie-crusting technique and an all-inside meniscal repair device (with only anterior portals) is effective in the repair of ramp lesions. This Technical Note aims to report in detail the flow of a series of techniques, including our diagnostic and therapeutic methods.

All-Inside Meniscal Repair: A Historical View

Background: All-inside meniscal repair first became popularized in the early 2000s. Since that time, there has been a wide variety of all-inside implants on the market with rapid changes and developments in recent years. Indications: Small, peripheral, longitudinal tears are best suited for all-inside repair, but this technique may even be used for large bucket handle tears especially when hybridized with an inside-out repair. Technique Description: A percutaneous release of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) with an 18-g spinal needle is frequently performed when working in the medial compartment to improve visualization and decrease risk of iatrogenic chondral injury. Close familiarity with the characteristics of the chosen all-inside device including device angle, modifiability of device angle, modifiability of needle depth, deployment method, and tensioning technique is important for obtaining reproducible results. Typically, obtaining a vertical mattress stitch configuration is optimal as it captures more circumferential collagen fibers in the repair. Results: Factors to consider when selecting an all-inside meniscal repair device include the ergonomics of the device, implant cost, availability, rigid versus suture-based anchor, core needle diameter, device flexibility, and percent of misfires. Discussion: Complications from use of all-inside meniscus repair devices include device failure, soft tissue entrapment, cyst formation, and injury to the popliteal artery. Outcomes, however, with current devices are good and comparable to inside-out meniscus repair with about a 90% return to sports rate at 12 months postoperatively. The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Clinical outcomes of medial meniscus posterior root repair: A midterm follow-up study

BackgroundTranstibial pullout repair of medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) cannot prevent the progression of knee osteoarthritis. Conversions of knee arthroplasties are occasionally required following MMPRT repair. However, other knee-related surgical treatments following MMPRT repair are unclear. This study was aimed at investigating the midterm clinical outcomes and knee-related surgical events following MMPRT repair. MethodsPatients with MMPRT underwent pullout repair using FasT-Fix modified Mason-Allen (F-MMA) suturing with an all-inside meniscal repair device. Thirty-two patients with follow-up duration >2 years were enrolled. We assessed the clinical outcomes and postoperative surgical treatment of both knees. ResultsF-MMA pullout repair improved all clinical evaluation scores in patients with MMPRT at a mean follow-up of 36.1 months. Postoperative arthroscopic debridement was required for one patient. An additional MMPRT repair was performed in one patient on second-look arthroscopy. None of the patients required ipsilateral knee arthroplasty. In the contralateral knees, one pullout repair of a newly developed MMPRT and two knee arthroplasties were performed. ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that F-MMA pullout repair yielded satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, subsequent knee-related surgeries were observed in 6.3% of the pullout-repaired knees and 9.4% of the contralateral knees. Our results suggest that surgeons should be aware of the worsening and/or occurrence of contralateral knee joint disease, even when the postoperative clinical outcomes are satisfactory following MMPRT repair.Level of evidence: IV.

Inside-Out Meniscal Repair: Still a Useful Technique

Background: New generation of all-inside meniscal repair devices are now the preferred repairing method for most orthopedic surgeons. The economic considerations in low-income countries make routine use of these devices very difficult. The inside-out technique described by Charles Henning in the 1980s, which is considered as the gold standard by many expert surgeons, can solve this problem with equal results. Indications: Indications are large and unstable tears localized in the middle and posterior thirds of both menisci. Surgical Technique: We introduced a slight modification to the original technique, allowing the use of a resorbable suture thread. After a good exposition of the lesion and debridement of the margins, a canulated needle with curved tip (Menghini needle) is introduced through the opposite portal to the repaired meniscus. The first passage of the needle is done on the peripheric side of the tear to protect neurovascular structures; posteromedial or posterolateral security approaches are made to control the capsular exit of the needle. A popliteal retractor is placed to keep the articular capsule exposed. A polydioxanone (PDS) suture thread is passed through the needle and retrieved by the assistant. The needle is then pulled out in the joint and reintroduced on the inner part of the tears producing a vertical mattress suture. The second limb of the PDS is retrieved by the assistant, and a knot is tied on the capsular side of the knee. Sutures are placed on the femoral and the tibial side of the meniscus to produce a good reduction and a stable fixation of the lesion. Full range of motion of the knee is allowed at 6 weeks postoperatively. Results: Between January 2017 and June 2020, 33 bucket-handle meniscal tears were repaired. Associated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was done in 17 cases. The average International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score jumped from 49.6 to 86.2. We had a short-term success rate of 91%. Recent literature review showed equivalent results with new all-inside repairing devices. Conclusion: Despite some disadvantages as being time-consuming, the need of security approaches, and the need of a trained assistant, inside-out meniscal repair remains a reliable technique offering good results.

Novel Posterior Anchoring Method Associated With Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Repair

Introduction: Transtibial pullout repair is the gold standard surgical treatment for medial meniscus (MM) posterior root tear. However, posteromedial extrusion of the MM during knee flexion may remain a problem postoperatively. Materials and Methods: We used a novel posterior anchoring technique to help reduce posteromedial extrusion, applying two cinch sutures (TCSs) to the MM posterior horn and creating a bone tunnel at the center of the posterior root attachment to pullout the suture. Another bone tunnel was created at the posterior corner of the medial tibial plateau in the externally rotated knee flexion. The first anchor of an all-inside meniscal repair device was inserted through the inferior surface of the MM posterior horn with tensioning TCS and the second anchor into the bone tunnel. Tibial fixation of pullout sutures was performed using a bioabsorbable screw in 30 degrees knee flexion. Conclusions: Our posterior anchoring method, combined with conventional pullout repair with TCS, helped reduce posteromedial extrusion in patients with a MM posterior root tear.

Microinvasive Meniscal Suture with Disposable Needle.

The first meniscal suture was performed in 1885 and took about a century to become popular. Currently, all-inside meniscal repair devices are widely used. However, this technique presents the disadvantage of being a method dependent on specific devices, presenting a higher cost than other techniques. This high cost limits the use of such a technique in many locations. The objective of the present technical note is to describe a microinvasive meniscal suture technique as a modification of the all-inside technique, using a disposable 40 × 12 mm procedure needle. The authors believe that the proposed modification to the technique can make it more popular, enabling the use of the microinvasive technique in places with limited resources.

The Danger Zone for Iatrogenic Neurovascular Injury in All-Inside Lateral Meniscal Repair in Relation to the Popliteal Tendon: An MRI Study.

Background:Lateral meniscal repair can endanger the nearby neurovascular structure (peroneal nerve or popliteal artery). To our knowledge, there have been no studies to evaluate the danger zone of all-inside meniscal repair through the anteromedial (AM) and anterolateral (AL) portals in relation to the medial and lateral edges of the popliteal tendon (PT).Purpose:To establish the risk of neurovascular injury and the danger zone in repairing the lateral meniscus in relation to the medial and lateral edges of the PT.Study Design:Descriptive laboratory study.Methods:Using axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies at the level of the lateral meniscus, lines were drawn to simulate a straight, all-inside meniscal repair device, drawn from the AM and AL portals to both the medial and lateral edges of the PT. In cases in which the line passed through the neurovascular structure, a risk of iatrogenic neurovascular injury was deemed, and measurements were made to determine the danger zones of neurovascular injury in relation to the medial or lateral edges of the PT.Results:Axial MRI images of 240 adult patients were reviewed retrospectively. Repairing the body of the lateral meniscus through the AM portal had a greater risk of neurovascular injury than repairs made through the AL portal in relation to the medial edge of the PT (P = .006). The danger zone in repairing the lateral meniscus through the AM portal extended 1.82 ± 1.68 mm laterally from the lateral edge of the PT and 3.13 ± 2.45 mm medially from the medial edge of the PT. Through the AL portal, the danger zone extended 2.81 ± 1.94 mm laterally from the lateral edge of the PT and 1.39 ± 1.53 mm medially from the medial edge of the PT.Conclusion:Repairing the lateral meniscus through either the AM or the AL portals in relation to the PT can endanger the peroneal nerve or popliteal artery.Clinical Relevance:The surgeon can minimize the risk of iatrogenic neurovascular injury in lateral meniscal repair by avoiding using the all-inside meniscal device in the danger zone area as described in this study.

All-Inside Repair for Radial Tear at the Posterior Horn of the Lateral Meniscus: A Figure-8 Suture Technique

Arthroscopic suture repair for a radial tear at the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus poses a technical procedure for surgeons. We describe an all-inside repair technique using all-inside meniscal repair devices without adding any accessory portals. This simple technique provides precise reduction and stabilization of the meniscus by pinching 2 all-inside vertical sutures consecutively across the tear site.

Transtibial pullout repair techniques using two simple stitches for medial meniscus posterior root tear can prevent the progression of medial meniscus extrusion and obtain successful outcomes.

Transtibial pullout repairs using two simple stitches (TSS) and a combination of TSS with posteromedial pullout repair (TSS + PMP) using an all-inside meniscal repair device have been reported previously for the treatment of medial meniscus (MM) posterior root tears. This study aimed to investigate the postoperative clinical outcomes of these techniques including MM extrusion (MME). Fifty-two patients who underwent transtibial pullout repair were investigated and divided into TSS (n = 27) and TSS + PMP (n = 25) groups. The clinical outcomes were assessed using the Lysholm knee score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 1year postoperatively and compared between two groups. MME was measured using magnetic resonance imaging at 1 year postoperatively and compared between two groups. A significant improvement in each clinical score was observed in both groups, and no significant difference was seen in clinical outcomes. Moreover, no significant difference in postoperative MME was observed in both groups (TSS and TSS + PMP: 3.5mm and 3.8mm, respectively). Though no significant progression of MME was observed in TSS group, a significant progression of it was observed in TSS + PMP group postoperatively. This study demonstrated that both techniques improved clinical outcomes in the short-term postoperative period. However, MME was progressed significantly in TSS + PMP group 1 year postoperatively, which indicated that PMP might not be a useful additional procedure for reducing the postoperative MME.

Biomechanical Comparison of an All-Inside Meniscal Repair Device Construct Versus Pullout Sutures for Arthroscopic Transtibial Repair of Posterior Medial Meniscus Root Tears: A Matched-Pair Cadaveric Study.

Background:Meniscus root repairs are important for restoring knee function after a complete meniscus root tear. Various suturing patterns have been proposed for the root repair. The 2-simple-stitches (TSS) method is currently the preferred technique, as it is simplest to perform and allows the least displacement of the meniscus root.Purpose:To compare the biomechanical properties of a posterior medial meniscus transtibial root repair consisting of an all-inside meniscal repair device (AMRD) construct with the TSS pullout suture pattern.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:Ten pairs of cadaveric medial menisci were prepared with 1 of the 2 constructs. The constructs were randomized between pairs. All constructs were subjected to preloading with 2 N for 10 seconds and then cyclic loading from 5 N to 20 N for 1000 cycles at a frequency of 0.5 Hz. Subsequently, the menisci were loaded to failure at a rate of 0.5 mm/s. All loads were applied in-line with the circumferential meniscal fibers near the posterior medial meniscal horn.Results:The mean yield load and stiffness were similar for both constructs. The elongation after cyclic loading was greater for the AMRD. The displacement at both yield load and ultimate failure were also higher for the AMRD. The ultimate failure load of the AMRD was also significantly higher. During load to failure, the mode of failure in the AMRD was heterogeneous. All the TSS constructs failed by suture cutout.Conclusion:Posterior medial meniscus root repairs using both the AMRD and TSS constructs have elongation under the biomechanically acceptable threshold of 3 mm. The stiffness and yield loads indicate similar mechanical properties of the constructs. However, the significantly higher elongation for the AMRD leaves the TSS method as the preferred option for transtibial repairs. Despite this, the AMRD construct may still represent a viable alternative to the TSS suture pattern, comparable to alternative suture patterns with similar limitations.Clinical Relevance:The AMRD construct may represent a viable alternative to the TSS suture pattern.

Medial meniscus posterior root repairs: A comparison among three surgical techniques in short-term clinical outcomes and arthroscopic meniscal healing scores

BackgroundMedial meniscus (MM) posterior root repairs lead to favorable clinical outcomes in patients with MM posterior root tears (MMPRTs). However, there are few comparative studies in evaluating the superiority among several pullout repair techniques such as modified Mason–Allen suture, simple stitch, and concomitant posteromedial pullout repair. We hypothesized that an additional pullout suture at the MM posteromedial part would have clinical advantages in transtibial pullout repairs of the MMPRTs. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical usefulness among several types of pullout repair techniques in patients with MMPRTs. MethodsEighty-three patients who underwent arthroscopic pullout repairs of the MMPRTs were investigated. Patients were divided into three groups using different pullout repair techniques: a modified Mason–Allen suture using FasT-Fix all-inside meniscal repair device (F-MMA, n = 28), two simple stitches (TSS, n = 30), and TSS concomitant with posteromedial pullout repair using all-inside meniscal repair device (TSS-PM, n = 25). Postoperative clinical outcomes and semi-quantitative arthroscopic meniscal healing scores (0–10 points) were evaluated at second-look arthroscopies. ResultsNo significant differences among the three groups were observed in patient demographics and preoperative clinical scores, except for preoperative Lysholm scores. At second-look arthroscopies, there were no significant differences among the three techniques in postoperative clinical outcomes and meniscal healing scores. ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that the TSS-PM pullout repair technique did not show better scores in postoperative clinical outcomes and meniscal healings compared with the F-MMA and TSS techniques. Our results suggest that the concomitant posteromedial pullout suture may have no clinical advantage in the conventional pullout repairs for the patients with MMPRTs.

All-inside Techniques for Meniscal Radial Root Tear Repair

Meniscal radial root tears can disrupt the load-bearing function of the meniscus and worsen instability in anterior cruciate ligament–deficient knees. Paracentral radial tears adjacent to the root (types 1, 2, and 4) repaired with a transtibial pullout suture technique can lead to over-medialization of the meniscal root and a high-tension nonanatomic repair. We propose 2 all-inside techniques for anatomic repair of medial and lateral meniscal radial root tears with (1) an all-inside meniscal repair device and (2) an antegrade suture passer. We present the technical requirements and tips for these techniques. For lateral meniscal radial root repair with an all-inside meniscal repair device, ideal viewing is from an anterolateral portal with device entry from an anteromedial portal to reduce the risk of vascular injury. We recommend at least 2 stitches across the tear, with the depth setting limited to 18 to 20 mm for a central stitch and 16 mm or less for a peripherally placed stitch. For root repair with an antegrade suture passer, viewing should be from an anteromedial portal with the passer entering from an anterolateral portal. At least 2 stitches should be placed across the tear, with 1 central and 1 peripheral or 1 superior and 1 inferior.

Simple Medial Meniscus Posterior Horn Root Repair Using an All-Inside Meniscal Repair Device Combined with High Tibial Osteotomy to Maintain Joint-Space Width in a Patient with a Repairable Tear.

To compare the radiological and clinical outcomes using simple medial meniscus posterior horn (MMPH) root repair using an all-inside meniscal repair device combined with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and HTO alone. Between November 2013 and December 2016, patients treated for MMPH root tear along with HTO were enrolled. Based on the tear gap, the participants were divided into repairable (< 2mm) and unrepairable (> 2mm) categories. The participants in each group were divided into those amenable to simple MMPH root repair using an all-inside meniscal repair device and those that required no procedure for meniscus. Radiological parameters including mechanical femorotibial alignment (MA), posterior tibial slope (PTS) and medial joint-space width (JSW) were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 2years. For clinical evaluation, the WOMAC score was determined at the 2-year visit postoperatively. A total of 81 knees including 48 repairable (group R) and 33 unrepairable (group I) knees were enrolled. A total of 43 knees underwent simple MMPH root repair using an all-inside meniscal repair device (subgroup r), whereas the other 38 knees did not (subgroup n). The MA, PTS, and their postoperative changes as well as the WOMAC scores showed no differences. However, the JSW in group Rr increased from 3.1 to 3.6mm, but decreased from 3.7 to 3.4 in group Rn, which was a statistically significant difference. Simple MMPH root repair using an all-inside meniscal repair device combined with HTO was more effective for the maintenance of JSW compared with HTO without a meniscal procedure in patients with repairable MMPH root tear and varus alignment. However, other options are needed for unrepairable MMPH root tear.

Excellent medium-term survival of an all-inside tensionable knotted suture device justifies repair of most meniscal tears encountered during reconstructive knee ligament surgery.

All-inside meniscal repair devices have evolved to allow surgeons to undertake complex repairs in a timely and efficient manner. This is advantageous in active patients, where meniscus preservation is critical in preserving joint function and stability. The aim of the study was to evaluate the failure rate of all-inside meniscal repair performed in patients undergoing reconstructive ligament surgery using a particular meniscal repair device. Patients were identified using a single-site prospectively maintained patient registry. Primary outcome was failure, defined as return to surgery with documented failure of repair. Complication rates and functional scores were also recorded. Patients in whom meniscal repair failure was identified were further assessed, to identify any common features. Over an 8-year period, 323 patients underwent meniscal repair at the time of ligament reconstruction, compared to 244 meniscectomies. Of these, 286 patients underwent repair using an all-inside suture device. One-hundred and twenty-seven repairs were to the medial meniscus only, 124 were lateral, and in 35 patients both menisci were repaired. Follow-up was to a median of 51.5months. There were 31 (9.7%) failures reported at a median of 22months post-operatively (IQR 13.5-41.5). Medial repair failures were seen more frequently than lateral (13.6% versus 5.6% OR 2.62 95% CI 1.17-5.88 p = 0.022). Failure of ACL reconstruction was associated with meniscal repair failure (OR 5.83 95% CI 1.55-21.95 p = 0.0039). Multi-ligament reconstruction was undertaken in 70/286 patients receiving meniscal repair and was not associated with failure (OR 1.3 95% CI 0.57-2.98 p = 0.51). Mode number of all-inside sutures used was 3 in both medial and lateral repairs (Range 1-9 lateral; 1-7 medial). All-inside repair is a safe and versatile technique which can be used in the majority of meniscal tears encountered during ligament reconstruction with excellent mid-term success. Failure is seen more commonly in medial sided repairs and with failure of ACL reconstruction. IV.

Alternative Techniques for Lateral and Medial Posterior Root Meniscus Repair Without Special Instruments

Improved understanding and treatment of posterior medial and lateral meniscus root tears have attracted increasing interest. These lesions significantly compromise meniscal function, which can result in an outcome resembling total meniscectomy, and are also a potential cause of knee instability. Despite facilitating repair procedures and reducing the operative time for these lesions, all-inside meniscal repair devices are not available in all circumstances or registered for use in all countries worldwide. Furthermore, all-inside arthroscopic devices can be expensive. Therefore, low-cost alternatives for the treatment of these lesions must be identified. We present 2 efficient and safe techniques: an outside-in technique for repairing medial meniscus root tears and a technique using a simple needle inserted through the transtibial tunnel for lateral meniscal root repairs, neither of which requires the use of specific instruments, thus enabling appropriate treatment of posterior medial and lateral meniscus root tears.

The Biomechanical Performance of the Latest All-Inside Meniscal Repair Devices

To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of recently introduced meniscal repair devices with a hand-tied, inside-out meniscal suture in a human meniscus model. In detached adult human menisci, vertical longitudinal cuts were created 3 mm from the synovial-meniscal junction, simulating a bucket-handle meniscal tear. Each cut was repaired using a single device. Group 1 received a vertical mattress suture of No. 2-0 OrthoCord; group 2, TrueSpan device with PEEK (polyether ether ketone) anchors containing No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture; group 3, TrueSpan device with biodegradable poly-lactide-co-glycolide (PLGA) anchors containing No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture; group 4, Meniscal Cinch II device; group 5, AIR meniscal repair device; and group 6, FasT-Fix 360 device. All samples were preloaded at 5 N and cycled 200 times between 5 and 20 N. The specimens that survived cyclic loading were destructively tested at 12.5 mm/s. Endpoints included maximum load, displacement, stiffness, and failure mode. The mean failure loads were as follows: 95.8 N for OrthoCord suture, 87.1 N for TrueSpan with PEEK, 84.6 N for TrueSpan with PLGA, 48.6 N for Meniscal Cinch II, 72.3 N for AIR, and 68.1 N for FasT-Fix 360. Repairs performed with OrthoCord suture (P= .002) and both TrueSpan devices (P < .03) but not the FasT-Fix 360 device or AIR device were statistically significantly stronger than Meniscal Cinch II repairs. Mean cyclic displacement measured 1.1 mm for OrthoCord, 1.5 mm for TrueSpan with PEEK, 1.5 mm for TrueSpan with PLGA, 2.1 mm for Meniscal Cinch II, 1.1 mm for AIR, and 1.4 mm for FasT-Fix 360. The Meniscal Cinch II device showed more displacement than all other devices (P < .05). The FasT-Fix 360, AIR, and Meniscal Cinch II devices failed by anchor pullout from the peripheral meniscus. OrthoCord and both TrueSpan devices failed by suture pulling through the bucket-handle tissue. OrthoCord suture is stronger than the AIR, FasT-Fix 360, and Meniscal Cinch II devices. The TrueSpan device with PEEK and TrueSpan device with PLGA are stronger than the Meniscal Cinch II device. The Meniscal Cinch II device failed during cyclic loading with greater cyclic displacement than the AIR device, FasT-Fix 360 device, OrthoCord, and TrueSpan device with PEEK. The Meniscal Cinch II, AIR, and FasT-Fix 360 devices failed by anchor pullout, whereas OrthoCord and both TrueSpan devices failed by suture pull-through. Some newly introduced all-inside meniscal repair devices show inferior failure strength compared with earlier versions that might adversely impact clinical outcomes.