All-inside Meniscal Repair Research Articles

All-Inside Lateral Meniscal Repair via Anterolateral Portal Increases Risk of Vascular Injury: A Cadaveric Study

To compare the distance from the device tip to the neurovascular structures during an all-inside medial and lateral meniscal repair using anteromedial and anterolateral portals in a fresh-frozen cadaveric study. Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were studied. The popliteal artery, popliteal vein, and tibial nerve were identified after dissection via a posterior approach. An all-inside meniscal repair device was set to a 20-mm depth limit and inserted into a fixed point in the posterior horn at the meniscocapsular junction. This was performed for medial and lateral menisci via anteromedial and anterolateral arthroscopic portals. The distances between the device tip and the neurovascular structures were measured. We performed t tests to determine statistical significance. The distance between the device and popliteal artery was significantly closer when aimed at the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus via the anterolateral portal (4.7 ± 2.3mm) versus the anteromedial portal (13.0 ± 8.0mm, P= .010). The distance to the popliteal vein was closer via the anterolateral portal (6.7 ± 2.9mm) versus the anteromedial portal (13.9 ± 5.8mm, P= .004). For medial meniscal repair, the distance to the popliteal artery was significantly closer via the anteromedial portal (12.8 ± 11.3mm) versus the anterolateral portal (23.8 ± 7.7mm, P= .022). The distance to the popliteal vein was closer via the anteromedial portal (16.5 ± 11.3mm) versus the anterolateral portal (28.3 ± 8.2mm, P= .017). No significant difference was found in the distance to the tibial nerve when aimed at either meniscus via either portal. For all-inside meniscal repair, the popliteal vein is at risk and the popliteal artery is at high risk of injury when the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus is repaired via an anterolateral working portal. The popliteal artery and vein are at risk of injury when the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus undergoes all-inside repair via the anterolateral portal. Surgeons need to be aware of the risks when performing this repair.

The Position of the Popliteal Artery and Peroneal Nerve Relative to the Menisci in Children: A Cadaveric Study.

Background:Meniscal injury in skeletally immature patients is increasingly reported. During meniscal repair, all-inside devices may protrude beyond the posterior limits of the meniscus, putting the neurovascular structures at risk.Purpose:The purposes of this study were (1) to examine the relationship between the popliteal artery and the posterolateral and posteromedial aspects of the menisci, (2) to examine the relationship of the peroneal nerve to the posterolateral meniscus, and (3) to develop recommendations for avoiding neurovascular injury during posterior meniscal repair in pediatric patients.Study Design:Descriptive laboratory study.Methods:A total of 26 skeletally immature knee cadaveric specimens (7 females and 19 males) were included. Specimens were divided into age groups: 2-4, 5-8, and 9-11 years. The most posterior extent of the lateral and medial menisci was identified via sagittal and axial views on computed tomography (CT) scans. The shortest distance from the most posterior aspect of the lateral and medial menisci to the popliteal artery and the shortest distance from the posterior aspect of the lateral menisci to the anterior rim of the peroneal nerve were measured, and 3-dimensional models of representative specimens were re-created through use of CT scans.Results:For the age groups 2-4, 5-8, and 9-11 years, the mean minimum distance from the posterolateral meniscus to the popliteal artery was 5.2, 6.7, and 8.2 mm, respectively, and the mean minimum distance from the posteromedial meniscus to the popliteal artery was 12.7, 15.4, and 20.3 mm, respectively. In all groups, the distance between the posteromedial meniscus and the popliteal artery was greater than that between the posterolateral meniscus and the popliteal artery. The mean distance from the peroneal nerve to the lateral meniscus was 13.3, 15.0, and 17.9 mm for the respective groups.Conclusion:Many all-inside meniscal repair devices have sharp tips that penetrate posterior to the meniscus and capsule. This study demonstrated that the distance between the posterior meniscus and popliteal artery is relatively small in pediatric patients, especially for the lateral meniscus region.Clinical Relevance:Because of the higher potential for meniscal healing, meniscal repair is more likely to be performed in pediatric patients. The data in this study regarding the proximity of the lateral meniscus and neurovascular structures may be used to guide safe surgical repair of posterior meniscal tears during the use of all-inside meniscal repair devices in these patients.

Proximity of the Neurovascular Bundle During Posterior-Lateral Meniscal Repair: A Comparison of the Transpatellar, Anteromedial, and Anterolateral Portals

To compare the neurovascular proximity of the transpatellar portal with that of the medial and lateral portals and to determine the safe penetration depth for an all-inside device for use on the posterior horn lateral meniscus. Dissection of the popliteal fossa was performed in 10 cadaveric knees to identify all structures. Arthroscopy was performed using penetration depths of 10, 12, 14, and 16mm with the all-inside system through the anteromedial, anterolateral, and transpatellar portals. Penetrations were made 5 and 10mm lateral to the posterior horn root at the meniscocapsular junction. Needle-tip distances were measured from the popliteal artery and vein, tibial nerve, and common peroneal nerve. Among 240 trials, the average distance to the popliteal neurovascular bundle using the medial, transpatellar, and lateral approaches was 6.9mm, 6.5mm, and 3.1mm, respectively. The transpatellar-portal needle had a larger distance from the neurovascular bundle than the lateral portal (P= .001), with no statistical difference compared with the medial portal (P= .58). Compared with the position at a 10-mm distance from the root, the position at a 5-mm distance from the root was closer to the neurovascular bundle in all approaches (P= .001). The transpatellar approach set to 14mm had a 5% rate of capsular underpenetration and 10% rate of gastrocnemius penetration. The transpatellar and medial portals had no neurovascular penetrations, whereas the lateral approach had a 14% rate of penetration (P < .05). The transpatellar portal and anteromedial portal are in less proximity to the neurovascular bundle compared with the anterolateral portal for all-inside meniscal repair of the posterior horn lateral meniscus. Low rates of neurovascular penetration, gastrocnemius muscle penetration, and capsular underpenetration occurred with a depth setting of 14mm. This study shows the utility of medial and transpatellar portals when using all-inside devices to repair posterior horn lateral meniscal tears and neurovascular proximity based on penetration depth.

Prevalence, development, and factors associated with cyst formation after meniscal repair with the all-inside suture device.

To investigate the prevalence of cyst formation after using all-inside meniscal repair device and analysed the risk factors associated with it. Between August 2008 and September 2013, 51 menisci of 46 patients were included in the study, 46 menisci of which had concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures and had an ACL reconstruction. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the knee was performed at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after meniscal surgery. The MRIs were assessed to detect the development of cysts encasing the suture anchors and to evaluate meniscal healing. Statistical analysis was performed using multiple regression analysis. Out of the 51 menisci examined, MRI revealed cysts in 15 menisci. Cysts were detected in 3 menisci at 6 months, in 9 menisci at 12 months, and in 3 menisci at 24 months after surgery. Only 3 patients (6.5%) were symptomatic, and cystectomy was performed in 2 of these patients and arthroscopic debridement in the other. Compared with using both the suture device and an inside-out suture repair, using the suture device alone was more likely to be associated with cyst development [odds ratio (OR), 12.04]. The medial meniscus was also significantly more likely to develop a cyst compared with the lateral meniscus (OR, 12.48). There was an increased outcome for the number of device use (P = 0.033). Though it was not statistically significant, the patients with anterior knee laxity (side-to-side difference > 3mm using a knee arthrometer) were more likely to develop cysts than those without anterior knee laxity (P = 0.06). There were no significant differences between the remaining variables. The prevalence of cyst formation around the suture implant was 29%, but most cases were not symptomatic. Significant risk factors for cyst formation included the use of a suture device alone, and a location in the medial meniscus. III.

Evaluating the risk of popliteal artery injury in the all-inside meniscus repair based on the location of posterior meniscal lesions.

The 'all-inside' meniscus repair is extremely useful technique in addressing tears at the far posterior horn of meniscus. However, this procedure may place the popliteal neurovascular bundle at risk of injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of popliteal artery injury by the trajectory of anchor delivery instruments inserted through standard knee arthroscopic portals for the repair of the far posterior horn of meniscus tears. Standard arthroscopic portals were marked on five human cadaveric knees which were subsequently disarticulated. Axial photographs were taken after marking the 5 10, and 15 mm points from the meniscal root on the posterior horns of the menisci. The unsafe zones for meniscus repair at each of these points were identified on the photographs of knees by first drawing two lines from the edges of the popliteal artery and crossing at the respective points at the posterior horns. The points at which these lines meet a circular protractor applied to the center of each meniscus in the knee photograph were recorded as a range. The range signifies the unsafe zone for each respective point on the posterior horn of meniscus. The anterolateral arthroscopic portal fell within the unsafe zone of the 5 mm point on the posterior horn of lateral meniscus in three of the five knees and within the unsafe zone of the 10 mm point on the posterior horn of lateral meniscus in another two knees. A cautious approach should be practiced during the repair of tears located at these two points. None of the other points' unsafe zones (lateral 15 mm, medial 5 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm points) coincided with the ipsilateral portal sites. Level of evidence 5 (Human cadaveric study).

Is MR imaging correlated with mid-term clinical results after arthroscopic all-inside meniscal repair?

Aim: To research the correlation between clinical and radiological results after arthroscopic meniscus repair with all-inside suture technique and to assess the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostic value on previously repaired meniscus.Materials and Methods: Fifty-two patients were included in the study.All-inside suture technique with a Fast-Fix suture device was used for all patients. After at least 24 months follow-up, the affected knee was checked with 1.5 Tesla MRI if there was an additional pathology or the meniscal pathology persisted with criteria of Crues et al. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores were used for evaluation of the functional status of patients. Barrett’s criteria wascriteria were used for failure rates and clinical improvement. Correlation between clinical results and MRI findings were investigated.Results: The mean follow-up was 39.6 (range, 24–60) months. The mean age was 31.4 (range, 21–45) years. At the last time follow up the mean IKDC and Lysholm scores were improved significantly (p0.001). Healing in RR zone tears were significantly better than for the RW zone according to the clinical scores (p=0.02). MRI had one false negative and 11 false positive resultsresult when compared with the clinical results. In radiological results, repairs after at least 8 weeks were different from early repairs and had significantly higher failure rates (p=0.01).Conclusion: Clinical examination and radiological investigation for meniscal healing with 1.5 Tesla MRI gave significantly different healing and failure rates (p=0.006).Evaluating a previously repaired meniscus with MRI is controversial.

Proximity of the neurovascular structures during all-inside lateral meniscal repair in children: a cadaveric study

PurposeMeniscal repair has become increasingly common in a pediatric and adolescent population. All-inside repair techniques are utilized more often given their ease of insertion and decreased operative time required. However, there are possible risks including damage to adjacent neurovascular structures. The purpose of this study to was examine the proximity of the neurovascular structures during lateral meniscus repairs in pediatric specimens simulating a worst-case scenario.MethodsTen pediatric cadaveric knees (age 4–11) were utilized and simulated lateral meniscal repair through the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus and both medial and lateral to the popliteal hiatus through the body of the lateral meniscus was performed with an all-inside meniscal repair device. The distance to the popliteal artery or peroneal nerve was measured.ResultsDuring posterior horn repair, the average distance from the all-inside device to the popliteal artery was 1.9 mm ± 1.1 mm. There was penetration of the artery in one specimen. During repair on the medial side of popliteal hiatus, the average distance from the all-inside device to the peroneal nerve was 3.2 mm ± 2.0 mm. During repair on the lateral side of popliteal hiatus, the average distance from the all-inside device to the peroneal nerve was 12.4 mm ± 3.7 mm.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the proximity of the neurovascular structures to the lateral meniscus in children is extremely close and at high risk during meniscal repair with all-inside devices. This study gives important data for the proximity of these structures during these repair techniques.Level of evidenceLevel 5 Cadaveric Study.

Patient- and Procedure-Specific Variables Driving Total Direct Costs of Outpatient Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Background:Few studies have investigated the influence of patient-specific variables or procedure-specific factors on the overall cost of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in an ambulatory surgery setting.Purpose:To determine patient- and procedure-specific factors influencing the overall direct cost of outpatient arthroscopic ACLR utilizing a unique value-driven outcomes (VDO) tool.Study Design:Cohort study (economic and decision analysis); Level of evidence, 3.Methods:All ACLRs performed by 4 surgeons over 2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Cost data were derived from the VDO tool. Patient-specific variables included age, body mass index, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, smoking status, preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Testing (PF-CAT) score, and preoperative Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score. Procedure-specific variables included graft type, revision status, associated injuries and procedures, time from injury to ACLR, surgeon, and operating room (OR) time. Multivariate analysis determined patient- and procedure-related predictors of total direct costs.Results:There were 293 autograft reconstructions, 110 allograft reconstructions, and 31 hybrid reconstructions analyzed. Patient-specific factors did not significantly influence the ACLR cost. The mean OR time was shorter for allograft reconstruction (P < .001). Predictors of an increased direct cost included the use of an allograft or hybrid graft (44.5% and 33.1% increase, respectively; P < .001), increased OR time (0.3% increase per minute; P < .001), surgeon 3 or 4 (9.1% or 5.9% increase, respectively; P < .001 or P = .001, respectively), and concomitant meniscus repair (24.4% increase; P < .001). Within the meniscus repair cohort, all-inside, root, and combined repairs correlated with a 15.5%, 31.4%, and 53.2% increased mean direct cost, respectively, compared with inside-out repairs (P < .001).Conclusion:This study failed to identify modifiable patient-specific factors influencing direct costs of ACLR. Allografts and hybrid grafts were associated with an increased total direct cost. Meniscus repair independently predicted an increased direct cost, with all-inside, root, and combined repairs being costlier than inside-out repairs. The time-saving potential of all-inside meniscus repair was not realized in this study, making implant use a significant factor in the overall cost of ACLR with meniscus repair.

The popliteus tendon provides a safe and reliable location for all-inside meniscal repair device placement.

Repairs of the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus can be technically challenging. In contrast to medial meniscus repairs, the capsule around the posterior segment attachment of the lateral meniscus is quite thin. This study evaluates the clinical results of an arthroscopic all-inside repair technique for unstable, vertical, lateral meniscus tears, using a suture repair placed directly into the popliteus tendon. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the SANTI database was performed. All patients who had undergone combined ACL reconstruction with lateral meniscus all-inside repair, using sutures placed in the popliteus tendon, between 2011 and 2015, were included. Patients were reviewed clinically at 1 and 2years' follow-up. At final follow-up, all patients were contacted to identify if they underwent further surgery or had knee pain, locking or effusion. Symptomatic patients were recalled for clinical evaluation by a physician and Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the knee. Operative notes for those undergoing further surgery were reviewed and rates and type of re-operation, including for failed lateral meniscal repair were recorded. Two hundred patients (mean age 28.6 ± 10.2years) with a mean follow-up of 45.5 ± 12.8months (range 24.7-75.2) were included. The mean Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) at final follow-up was 85.0 ± 11.3. The post-operative mean side-to-side laxity measured at 1year was 0.6 ± 1.0mm. Twenty-six patients underwent re-operation (13%) at a mean follow-up of 14.8 ± 7.8months. The ACL graft rupture rate was 5.0%. Other causes for re-operation included medial meniscus tear (2.5%), cyclops lesion (1.5%) and septic arthritis (0.5%). The lateral meniscus repair failure rate was 3.5%. No specific complications relating to placement of sutures in the popliteus tendon were identified. Arthroscopic all-inside repair of unstable, vertical, lateral meniscus tears using a suture placed in the popliteus tendon is a safe technique. It is associated with a very low failure rate with no specific complications. Level IV.

Repair of a Chronic Large Meniscal Defect With Implantation of Autogenous Meniscal Fragments Using a Tubular-Shaped Fibrin Clot

We present a technique to implant autogenous meniscal fragments using a fibrin clot to repair a large degenerative meniscal defect. A total of 25 mL of the patient's blood is agitated for 10 minutes using a stainless steel swizzle stick in a sterile glass syringe. The elastic fibrin clot subsequently adheres to the stick in a tubular manner. Using arthroscopic debridement, native meniscal tissue is resected. The meniscal fragments are packaged into the tubular-shaped fibrin clot, and the tube is tied at both ends using 4-0 absorbable sutures. A repair suture is prepared using the inside-out meniscal repair device and woven into the margins of the tubular-shaped fibrin clot. The packaged graft with the tubular-shaped fibrin clot is placed with a horizontal suture across both edges of the meniscal defect and secured with a supplemental vertical suture using an all-inside meniscal repair device. Follow-up arthroscopy performed 6 months postoperatively reveals regeneration of meniscus-like tissue. It is ideal to treat large degenerative defects with meniscal preservation, and the present procedure has the advantage of tissue regeneration with native meniscal tissue and growth factors obtained from the fibrin clot using a simple technique. This method could prove helpful in patients with degenerative meniscal defects.

Correction to: The all-inside meniscal repair technique has less risk of injury to the lateral geniculate artery than the inside-out repair technique when suturing the lateral meniscus.

The author claims that his name is incorrectly listed on PubMed. The first name should be Jorge and the last name should be Díaz Heredia.

All-inside Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair Technique Using a Midbody Accessory Portal

Treatment of symptomatic meniscal tears continues to evolve as we improve our understanding of the biomechanical role of the meniscus and its long-term importance to the health of the knee joint. Suture repair of meniscal tears is challenging, yet the incidence of repairs among our colleagues continues to rise as we aim to preserve meniscal tissue. Many elements of performing a repair are tedious and difficult, including proper meniscal preparation, reduction, mattress suture placement, and fixation. The tear pattern and location present another layer of difficulty. The most widely used all-inside repair devices are harpoon-style devices and present their own challenges in using them without causing harm to the meniscus and surrounding cartilage. In this article, we describe a simple all-inside meniscal repair technique to improve the reproducibility and reliability of meniscal repairs using an accessory midbody meniscal portal and a surgical probe. This ensures proper placement of mattress sutures in a reduced meniscus, with a reduced risk of collateral injury to the meniscus and articular cartilage. Furthermore, this surgical technique is adaptable to any meniscal fixation method to the medial or lateral meniscus.

Prognostic factors for all-inside meniscal repair. A 87-case series

IntroductionRepair is indicated for tears in non-degenerative menisci. The literature reports a 15% failure rate for all-inside repair. The aim of the present study was to determine prognostic factors for failure of all-inside meniscal repair. The study hypothesis was that epidemiological, clinical and surgical factors affect success. Material and methodsA retrospective study included 87 meniscal repair procedures, with or without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. Lesions were located in red-red or red-white zones. After freshening, repair comprised an all-inside arthroscopic technique using the FasT-Fix® system (Smith & Nephew), with (70.1%) or without ligament reconstruction; all ACL tears were reconstructed. Preoperative data comprised: age, gender, smoking status, sports activity, trauma-to-surgery time, body mass index (BMI), frontal morphotype, and IKDC score. Intra- and postoperative data comprised: meniscal lesion characteristics, location, number of sutures, type of ACL reconstruction, presence of chondropathy, authorized postoperative ranges of motion, and IKDC score. Failure was defined by secondary meniscectomy. ResultsAt 31 months’ follow-up, there were 13 failures (15%). Mean postoperative IKDC score was 88.19 (range: 64.37–98.95). Bucket-handle lesion (P=0.006) and BMI>25 (P=0.014) emerged as significant factors of poor prognosis. DiscussionThe present failure rate matched those reported in the literature. The more extensive the lesion, the higher the risk of failure. High BMI incurs mechanical stresses that increase the risk of failure. Level of evidenceIV, retrospective cohort study.

A Contact Pressure Analysis Comparing an All-Inside and Inside-Out Surgical Repair Technique for Bucket-Handle Medial Meniscus Tears

To directly compare effectiveness of the inside-out and all-inside medial meniscal repair techniques in restoring native contact area and contact pressure across the medial tibial plateau at multiple knee flexion angles. Twelve male, nonpaired (n= 12), fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees underwent a series of 5 consecutive states: (1) intact medial meniscus, (2) MCL tear and repair, (3) simulated bucket-handle longitudinal tear of the medial meniscus, (4) inside-out meniscal repair, and (5) all-inside meniscal repair. Knees were loaded with a 1,000-N axial compressive force at 5 knee flexion angles (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°), and contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure were calculated using thin film pressure sensors. No significant differences were observed between the inside-out and all-inside repair techniques at any flexion angle for contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure (all P>.791). Compared with the torn meniscus state, inside-out and all-inside repair techniques resulted in increased contact area at all flexion angles (all P<.005 and all P < .037, respectively), decreased mean contact pressure at all flexion angles (all P < .007 and all P < .001, respectively) except for 0° (P= .097 and P= .39, respectively), and decreased peak contact pressure at all flexion angles (all P < .001, all P < .001, respectively) except for 0° (P= .080 and P= .544, respectively). However, there were significant differences in contact area and peak contact pressure between the intact state and inside-out technique at angles ≥45° (all P< .014 and all P < .032, respectively). Additionally, there were significant differences between the intact state and all-inside technique in contact area at 60° and 90° and peak contact pressure at 90° (both P<.005 and P= .004, respectively). Median values of intact contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure over the tested flexion angles ranged from 498 to 561mm2, 786 to 997N/mm2, and 1,990 to 2,215N/mm2, respectively. Contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure were not significantly different between the all-inside and inside-out repair techniques at any tested flexion angle. Both techniques adequately restored native meniscus biomechanics near an intact level. An all-inside repair technique provided similar, native-state-restoring contact mechanics compared with an inside-out repair technique for the treatment of displaced bucket-handle tears of the medial meniscus. Thus, both techniques may adequately decrease the likelihood of cartilage degeneration.

Effects of suture site or penetration depth on anchor location in all-inside meniscal repair

BackgroundTo evaluate the effects of suture site or penetration depth on anchor location in all-inside meniscal repair. MethodsEight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were evaluated after meniscal repair using eight FasT-Fix360 (FF360) devices (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA) (16 anchors) for each knee. The penetration depth was 14mm, the distance same from the periphery to insertion point, in four knees (Group A) and that in the remaining four knees (Group B) was 18mm. The anchor location in two groups was evaluated after attentive dissection. ResultsOf 32 anchors for the medial meniscus, 94% were on the capsule, including the superficial medial collateral ligament (sMCL) in both groups. For the lateral meniscus, 47% anchors in Group A and 44% anchors in Group B were on the capsule. Total three anchors were over the lateral collateral ligament (LCL), whereas 15 anchors were behind the popliteus tendon (POP). Although all three anchors settled in the subcutaneous fat were in Group B, no significant difference was observed in anchor location between two groups. ConclusionsSecure fixation to thin membranous tissue can be achieved for the medial meniscal repair using FF360, while some were located in/on bunchy LCL or POP in lateral meniscal repair. Only anchors with additional four-millimeter penetration depth were in the subcutaneous fat, although there was no effect of the penetration depth to anchor location.Clinically, for lateral meniscal repair, penetrating toward POP/LCL should be avoided and four-millimeter deeper penetration depth might be a risk for the subcutaneous irritation.

CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION

Purpose: To evaluate long-term results of meniscal repair during arthroscopic ACL reconstruction.Materials and methods: 45 patients who underwent meniscal repair during arthroscopic ACL reconstruction between 2007 and 2013 by the same surgeon were included in the study. In total, fifty meniscus were repaired (26 medial and 24 lateral). Procedures included use of one up to four Fast-Fix implants (Smith Nephew). In five cases both medial and lateral meniscus were repaired. Cincinnati, IKDC and Lysholm scales were used for long-term outcome analysis.Results: 19 male and 26 female patients were included in the study aging from 15 to 59 years (mean age 33,2±1,5). Median time from injury to surgical procedure was zero months (ranging zero to one). Mean time from surgery to scale analysis was 55,9±3 months (ranged 20-102). Median Cincinnati score was 97 (ranged 90-100), with excellent results in 93% of cases (43 patients) and good results in 7% (3 patients). Median IKDC score was 90,8 (ranged 86,2-95,4), with excellent outcomes in 51% of cases (23 patients), good in 33% (15 patients) and satisfactory in 16% (7 patients). Median Lysholm score was 95 (ranged 90-100), with excellent outcomes in 76% of cases (34 patients) and good in 24% (11 patients). Authors identified no statistical differences when comparing survey results in age, sex and time from trauma to surgery.Conclusions: Results of the present study match the data from orthopedic literature that prove meniscal repair as a safe and efficient procedure with good and excellent outcomes. All-inside meniscal repair can be used irrespectively of patients' age and is efficient even in case of delayed procedures.

New Complication Associated With All-Inside Meniscal Repair Device: Ultrasound-Aided Diagnosis and Operative Localization of Foreign Body Reaction.

Background:The importance of meniscal preservation has become widely accepted, and meniscal repair techniques have evolved over recent years. With new techniques come new complications, which are critical to recognize.Purpose:To describe a new complication of foreign body reaction from a nonabsorbable suture anchor associated with improper placement of the all-inside meniscal device.Study Design:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:This study was a retrospective review of 3 patients who developed pain associated with a foreign body reaction from a misplaced all-inside meniscal device.Results:All patients had a delayed diagnosis (6 months to 8 years) and negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Diagnostic ultrasound identified the misplaced suture with foreign body reaction and was used to guide a diagnostic injection of local anesthetic prior to surgical intervention. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance was utilized to precisely localize and excise the suture material and associated reactive tissue.Conclusion:Foreign body reaction from a misplaced all-inside meniscal device is a previously unreported complication. Diagnosis is challenging as MRI and arthroscopy can be unrevealing. Diagnostic ultrasound was able to identify the foreign body reaction, confirm the diagnosis by facilitating diagnostic local anesthetic injection, and guide surgical excision. Sonographic evaluation should be considered in patients presenting with ongoing knee pain after all-inside meniscus repair.

COMBINED INSIDE-OUT AND ALL-INSIDE TECHNIQUE IN BUCKET-HANDLE MENISCUS TEARS.

ABSTRACTObjective: To determine the outcomes after combined inside-out and all-inside repair technique of bucket-handle meniscus tears. Methods: A retrospective review was made of patients with bucket-handle meniscus tears repaired with combined techniques, using the all-inside technique in posterior meniscal tears and the inside-out technique in the middle part of the meniscal tears. Meniscal healing was assessed clinically using Barrett's criteria and MRI. Results: The study comprised 52 patients with a mean age of 28.4 years old (range, 19-52 years old). The mean follow-up period was 31.3 months (range, 24-59 months). Two patients had ACL re-rupture, and complete meniscal healing was achieved in all but one patient. Although improved from preoperative status, Tegner and Lysholm scores were lower in the ACL reconstructed patients than in the intact ACL patients. Conclusion: Combined inside-out and all-inside meniscal repair technique is a successful and cost-effective treatment method in bucket-handle meniscus tears. Level of Evidence IV, Therapeutic Study.

Inside-Out Versus All-Inside Repair of Isolated Meniscal Tears: An Updated Systematic Review

Background: Meniscal tears are common in the young, active population. In this group of patients, repair is advised when possible. While inside-out repair remains the standard technique, recent advances in all-inside repair devices have led to a growth in their popularity. Previous reviews on the topic have focused on outdated implants of limited clinical relevance. Purpose: To determine the difference in failure rates, functional outcomes, and complications between inside-out and modern all-inside repairs. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria were (1) clinical study reporting on all-inside or inside-out repair, (2) evidence levels 1 to 4, and (3) use of modern all-inside implants for all-inside repairs. Exclusion criteria were (1) use of meniscal arrows or screws and (2) concomitant surgical procedures. Study characteristics, subjects, surgical technique, clinical outcomes, and complications were collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 481 studies were screened and assessed for eligibility, which identified 27 studies for review. Studies defined clinical failure as persistent mechanical symptoms, effusion, or joint line tenderness, while anatomic failure was incomplete or no healing on MRI or second-look arthroscopy. There were no significant differences in clinical or anatomic failure rates between inside-out and all-inside repairs (clinical failure: 11% vs 10%, respectively, P = .58; anatomic failure: 13% vs 16%, respectively, P = .63). Mean ± SD Lysholm and Tegner scores for inside-out repair were 88.0 ± 3.5 and 5.3 ± 1.2, while the respective scores for all-inside repair were 90.4 ± 3.7 and 6.3 ± 1.3. Complications occurred at a rate of 5.1% for inside-out repairs and 4.6% for all-inside repairs. Conclusion: The quality of the evidence comparing inside-out and all-inside meniscal repair remains low, with a majority of the literature being evidence level 4 studies. In this review comparing modern all-inside devices with inside-out repair, no differences were seen in failure rates, functional outcome scores, or complication rates.

All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Meniscal Repair With Concurrent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-regression Analysis

Background: Meniscal tears are frequently repaired during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose: To systematically evaluate differences in clinical failures between all-inside and inside-out meniscal repairs performed during ACLR. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was perfomed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The databases queried included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All English-language studies reporting failure rates after meniscal repair with either the all-inside or inside-out technique performed in conjunction with ACLR were identified between 1980 and 2015. Studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Reported outcomes, clinical meniscal repair failures, and complications were assessed. Studies were weighted according to the size of the clinical series and mean follow-up length. Inverse-variance–weighted mixed models were used to evaluate whether there was a significant difference in pooled reoperation rates between repair techniques. Results: In total, 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 studies reported outcomes after all-inside repair, and 10 studies reported outcomes after inside-out repair (2 studies reported both). A total of 1126 patients were included in the analysis. The mean (±SD) follow-up for all-inside repair was 58.64 ± 22.24 months versus 76.25 ± 31.69 months for inside-out repair (P = .13). The clinical failure rate for all-inside meniscal repair performed concurrently with ACLR was 16% (121/744) compared with 10% (39/382) for inside-out repair, and this was found to be significant (P = .016). Implant irritation and device migration were the most common complications reported for all-inside repair; complication rates did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: There may be fewer early clinical failures when the inside-out technique is utilized for meniscal repair at the time of concomitant ACLR. Additional long-term studies will be useful to determine the operative success of these repairs over time.