Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Research Articles

The Treatment of Cartilaginous Lesions and Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: a Randomized Open Label Trial

The Treatment of Cartilaginous Lesions and Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: a Randomized Open Label Trial

Meniscus repair five-year results are influenced by patient pre-injury activity level but not age group

BackgroundThe purpose of the study is to determine whether patient age group (≥40 years versus <40 years) and pre-injury activity level are independently predictive of symptomatic failure rates and patient-reported outcomes after meniscus repair with or without concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) at mean five years of follow-up. MethodsTwo hundred and twenty-five patients (n = 61, age ≥40 years; n = 164, age <40; 11% sedentary, 63% recreational athletes, 26% competitive athletes; 72% cutting-pivoting sports, 28% non-cutting or non-pivoting sports) who underwent meniscal repair were assessed for symptomatic failure and subjective knee function at mean 5.4 years of follow-up. Symptoms were assessed with Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective (IKDC-S) scores. ResultsRepair failure was 20% overall with no association with age group (<40 vs. ≥40 years) or level of activity. When compared with sedentary patients, IKDC-S scores were not associated with age group but were lower among sedentary patients (mean: 59.6, SE: 4.9) compared with recreational (mean: 78.9, SE: 2.5; p = 0.007) or competitive athletes (mean: 79.2, SE: 3.8; p = 0.02). KOOS-ADL scores were independently associated with age and were higher among patients <40 years. KOOS-pain, KOOS-sport, or KOOS-QOL were not associated with age group. Sedentary status was independently associated with lower KOOS scores for all sub-scores. ConclusionsMeniscal repair failure rates and patient-reported outcomes do not differ substantially between older or younger patients of similar pre-injury activity level. Sedentary patients regardless of age have worse self-reported subjective outcomes compared with active patients.

Functional and anatomical outcomes of single-stage arthroscopic bimeniscal replacement

BackgroundMeniscal replacement by an allograft or scaffold has been proven effective in patients with post-meniscectomy pain syndrome. Replacement of both menisci is a rarely performed procedure about which little is known. The primary objective of this work was to assess the functional outcomes of arthroscopic bimeniscal replacement. The secondary objectives were to evaluate meniscal healing and the time-course of cartilage lesions. HypothesisSingle-stage arthroscopic bimeniscal replacement provides good functional and anatomical outcomes, similar to those seen after replacement of a single meniscus, in adults with post-meniscectomy pain syndrome. Material and methodsFive patients received regular follow-up after single-stage arthroscopic bimeniscal replacement by an allograft and/or substitute, with or without concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Median follow-up was 30 months (range, 24–68 months). Radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging scans of the knee obtained before surgery and at last follow-up were evaluated. The following parameters were recorded: KOOS and IKDC score, knee osteoarthritis, knee alignment, condition of the cartilage, healing of the meniscal replacement material, meniscal extrusion, and other complications. ResultsAllografts were used to replace both menisci in 3 patients, whereas 2 patients received a lateral allograft and a medial scaffold. The median subjective IKDC score was 83.9 (range, 55.1–94.3) and the median objective IKDC score was B (range, A–C). The median global KOOS was 85.7 (range, 65.7–92.3). Extrusion occurred for one medial and two lateral menisci. ConclusionBimeniscal replacement by an allograft and/or substitute provides good short-term functional and anatomical outcomes. Nevertheless, this procedure is warranted only in highly selected patients. Level of evidenceIV, retrospective study.

Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Temporary Hemiepiphysiodesis in the Skeletally Immature: A Combined Technique.

Young athletes with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) disruption and limb malalignment pose a treatment dilemma. Little has been published regarding limb malalignment in this population. Our aim is to review the results of combined treatment of an ACL deficient knee and genu valgum in skeletally immature patients. A retrospective review of skeletally immature patients who underwent transphyseal ACL reconstruction and concomitant hemiepiphysiodesis between 2004 and 2015 by 1 surgeon at a single institution was performed. Included patients had at least a year of growth remaining and were followed to skeletal maturity. Patients with a diagnosis of a connective tissue disorder were excluded. Knee stability, rate of retear, the rate of mechanical axis correction, and time to full correction were determined. Ninety skeletally immature patients underwent transphyseal ACL reconstruction, 8 of which met inclusion criteria. Mean time to correction of the valgus deformity was 13 months (0.4 degree/mo). No patient required additional surgeries for malalignment. All patients had improvement in knee stability. One patient had a retear of their ACL reconstruction, for a failure rate of 13%. Preoperative mechanical lateral distal femoral angle and mechanical axis deviation corrected to near-neutral alignment for all treated limbs and were significantly different (P=0.001) than those measured preoperatively. Promising results were seen for simultaneous correction of genu valgum and transphyseal ACL reconstruction. Treatment of both pathologies in a concomitant surgery can be considered in the appropriate population, with expected results comparable to each procedure in isolation. Level IV-case series.

Influence of Medial Meniscus Bucket-Handle Repair in Setting of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction on Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics: A Biomechanical Study

To compare the impact of an inside-out repair versus meniscectomy of a medial meniscus bucket-handle tear in restoring native contact areas and pressures across the tibial plateaus in the setting of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were tested in 6 knee conditions (1: intact; 2: ACL torn and bucket-handle tear of medial meniscus, flipped; 3: bucket-handle tear of medial meniscus, reduced; 4: bucket-handle tear of medial meniscus, repaired via inside-out vertical mattress suture technique; 5: ACLR with bone patella tendon bone autograft and bucket-handle repair; 6: ACLR and medial meniscus bucket-handle tear debridement) at 4 flexion angles (0°, 30°, 45°, and 60°), under a 1,000-N axial load. Contact area and pressure were measured with Tekscan sensors. ACLR with a concurrent medial meniscectomy for a medial meniscus bucket-handle tear resulted in significantly decreased contact area (P < .05) and increased mean and peak pressure in both the medial and lateral compartments across all tested flexion angles (P < .05). The ACLR with medial meniscectomy state also demonstrated significantly lower contact area than the bucket-handle repair state between 30° and 60° of flexion (all P < .05). Resection of a bucket-handle medial meniscus tear concurrent with an ACLR resulted in significant increases in mean and peak contact pressures in not only the medial but also the lateral compartment. Preservation of the medial meniscus in the face of a bucket-handle tear is essential to more closely restore native tibiofemoral biomechanics. The increased mean and peak tibiofemoral contact pressure seen with excision of a bucket-handle medial meniscus tear would over time result in increased cartilaginous degradation and resultant osteoarthritis. Decreasing both of these factors through concomitant ACLR and inside-out bucket-handle meniscal repairs should improve patient outcomes by restoring knee biomechanics and kinematics closer to that of the native state.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Concomitant Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparative Matched-Group Analysis of Return to Sport and Satisfaction

Objectives: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is commonly associated with articular cartilage injury. Few studies have evaluated the influence of cartilage repair on the outcome of ACL reconstruction. Currently, no known study has examined the return to sport rates of concomitant ACL reconstruction and OCA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate rate and level of return to sports, as well as long-term outcomes, between a matched cohort of isolated ACL reconstruction (ACLR) versus ACL reconstruction with concomitant OCA (ACLR/OCA). Methods: A prospectively collected registry was queried retrospectively for consecutive patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with concomitant OCA. Inclusion criteria were preoperative diagnosis of ACL rupture and more than 2 years of follow-up. After meeting the inclusion criteria, all ACL reconstructions with concomitant OCA were matched to two isolated ACL reconstruction patients via +/- 5 years of age at time of surgery, gender, revision status, and ACL reconstruction graft type. At final follow-up, patients were asked to complete a subjective sports questionnaire, the Marx activity scale, a visual analog scale (VAS), and a satisfaction questionnaire. Results: Seventeen ACL/OCA patients met inclusion criteria. Fourteen eligible 2:1 matched pairs (28 ACLR; 14 ACLR/OCA;), were identified for analysis. The average age at the time of surgery was 33.89 +/- 8.64 and 35.92 +/- 6.22 for the ACLR and ACLR/OCA groups, respectively (P = .44). Average follow-up was 4.09 years and 5.14 years for the ACLR and ACLR/OCA groups, respectively (P = .17). At final follow-up, the average Marx activity scalescores were 6.54 for ACRL patients and 1.57 for ACLR/OCA patients; final scores were significantly different between groups (P &lt; 0.01). The average VAS pain scores at final follow-up were 1.96 in the ACLR and 3.64 in ACLR/OCA groups with the ACLR/OCA patients displaying significantly worse final VAS pain scores (P = .03). 89.3% of ACLR patients (25 of 28) returned to at least 1 sport postoperatively compared with 57.1% of ACLR/OCA patients (8 of 14) (P=0.04). At final follow-up, 14.2% (2 of 14) of the ACLR/OCA group and 32.1% (9 of 28) of the ACLR group reported starting a new sport or activity. Average timing for full return to sports was 9.57 +/- 5.53 months and 9.27 +/- 3.25 months for the ACLR/OCA and ACLR groups, respectively (P = .86). At final follow-up, 33.3% and 57.1% of patients returned to better or same level of sport for the ACLR/OCA and ACLR groups, respectively (P = .06). Significantly more ACLR/OCA patients reported their activity level was hindered by their knee (92.8% ACLR/OCA; 60.7% ACLR). Significantly more ACLR patients reported satisfaction with their surgery compared with ACLR/OCA patients (89% vs 57%) (P &lt; 0.01), however no statistical difference was observed in satisfaction with ability to play sports between groups. Conclusion: Significantly less ACLR/OCA patients (57.1%) were able to return to at least 1 sport when compared to a matched ACLR cohort (89.3%). At final follow-up, a higher percentage of ACLR patients were able to return to pretreatment activity intensity level or better (ACLR/OCA, 33.3%; ACLR, 57.1%). ACLR/OCA patients had significantly more pain and lower Marx activity scores. Despite a lower return to sport rate, there was no statistical difference in reported satisfaction with activity level between the groups, however the ACLR/OCA groups reported significantly lower overall surgical satisfaction.

Platelet-Rich Plasma: Does It Decrease Meniscus Repair Failure Risk?

Objectives: (1) To determine whether intraoperative PRP affects meniscus repair failure risk. (2) To determine whether the effect of PRP on meniscus failure risk is influenced by ACL reconstruction status or by PRP preparation. Methods: 550 patients (mean age 28.8 years SD 11.3) who underwent meniscus repair surgery with PRP (n=203 total, n=148 prepared with GPS III system, n=55 Angel system) or without PRP (n=347) and with (n=399) or without (n=151) concurrent ACL reconstruction were assessed for meniscus repair failure within 3 years. The independent effect of PRP on meniscus repair failure risk was determined by multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling with adjustment for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ACL status, tear pattern, tear vascularity, repair technique, side (medial or lateral) and number of sutures or implants utilized. Results: Failures within 3 years occurred in 17.0% of patients without PRP and 14.7% of patients with PRP (p=0.52) (Angel PRP: 14.6%; GPS III PRP: 12.0%; p=0.59). Increased patient age was protective against meniscus failure regardless of ACL or PRP status (per 5-year increase in age: adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81, 1.0; p=0.047). The effect of PRP on meniscus failure risk was dependent upon concomitant ACL injury status (Figure). Among isolated meniscus repairs (20.3% failures at 3 years), PRP was independently associated with lower risk of failure (aHR 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.59; p=0.002) with no difference between PRP vendors (p=0.84). Among meniscus repairs with concomitant ACLR (14.1% failures at 3 years), PRP was not independently associated with risk of failure (aHR 1.39 CI 0.81, 2.36; p=0.23) with no difference between PRP venders (p=0.78). Conclusion: Both PRP preparations utilized in the current study had a substantial protective effect on isolated meniscus repair failure risk over 3 years. In the setting of concomitant ACL reconstruction, intraoperative PRP does not reduce meniscus repair failure risk. [Figure: see text]

Platelet-Rich Plasma Reduces Failure Risk for Isolated Meniscal Repairs but Provides No Benefit for Meniscal Repairs With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background: The effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on the risk of meniscal repair failure is unclear. Current evidence is limited to small studies without comparison between isolated repairs and meniscal repairs with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. It is also unclear whether the efficacy of PRP differs between preparation systems in the setting of meniscal repair. Purpose: (1) To determine whether intraoperative PRP affects the risk of meniscal repair failure. (2) To determine whether the effect of PRP on meniscal failure risk is influenced by ACL reconstruction status or by PRP preparation system. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The study entailed 550 patients (mean ± SD age, 28.8 ± 11.2 years) who underwent meniscal repair surgery with PRP (n = 203 total; n = 148 prepared with GPS III system, n = 55 prepared with Angel system) or without PRP (n = 347) and with (n = 399) or without (n = 151) concurrent ACL reconstruction. The patients were assessed for meniscal repair failure within 3 years. The independent effect of PRP on the risk of meniscal repair failure was determined by multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling with adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, ACL status, tear pattern, tear vascularity, repair technique, side (medial or lateral), and number of sutures or implants used. Results: Failures within 3 years occurred in 17.0% of patients without PRP and 14.6% of patients with PRP (P = .60) (Angel PRP, 15.9%; GPS III PRP, 14.2%; P = .58). Increased patient age was protective against meniscal failure regardless of ACL or PRP status (per 5-year increase in age: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.0; P = .047). The effect of PRP on meniscal failure risk was dependent on concomitant ACL injury status. Among isolated meniscal repairs (20.3% failures at 3 years), PRP was independently associated with lower risk of failure (aHR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59; P = .002) with no difference between PRP preparation systems (P = .84). Among meniscal repairs with concomitant ACL reconstruction (14.1% failures at 3 years), PRP was not independently associated with risk of failure (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.81-2.36; P = .23) with no difference between PRP preparation systems (P = .78). Conclusion: Both PRP preparations used in the current study had a substantial protective effect in terms of the risk of isolated meniscal repair failure over 3 years. In the setting of concomitant ACL reconstruction, PRP does not reduce the risk of meniscal repair failure.

Outcomes of Meniscus Repair in Children and Adolescents.

The purpose of this study was to review the clinical and functional outcomes of meniscus repair in children and adolescents. The sequel of meniscal tears and the outcome of meniscus repair have been well studied in adults. However, these topics have received less attention in the pediatric population despite the high prevalence and potentially critical effect on long-term knee function in children. Meniscus repair has a healing rate ranging from 33 to 100% with less than 40% reoperation rate. Several factors have been suggested to play a role in healing, such as concomitant ACL reconstruction and complexity of the tear. There is a lack of standardization among the utilization of functional outcome and activity level questionnaires across studies; however, most report improved function postoperatively. Other important considerations include bucket handle tears, the discoid meniscus, rehabilitation and return to sports, and alternatives after failed meniscus repair. Based on the favorable outcomes reported, meniscus repair should be attempted in most meniscus tears in children.

Meniscal Repair in Pediatric Populations: A Systematic Review of Outcomes.

Background:Loss of meniscal tissue in the pediatric population can have long-term consequences on joint health, highlighting the importance of meniscal preservation in this group.Purpose:To systematically review reported knee outcome measures and complication rates after repair of meniscal tears in children and adolescents.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A review of the literature regarding the existing evidence for pediatric meniscal tear outcomes was performed through use of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (1980-present), and MEDLINE (1980-present). Included were articles in English that reported the outcomes of meniscal tears in the pediatric population (<18 years old) with a follow-up of more than 12 months. Clinical outcome scores were reviewed.Results:A total of 1003 total studies were initially retrieved, with 8 meeting the inclusion criteria. The review included 287 patients (165 male, 122 female), mean age 15.1 years (range, 4-18 years), with 301 meniscal tears (reported: 134 medial, 127 lateral, and 32 both medial and lateral, 8 location unspecified). Concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed in 52% (158/301) of meniscal repairs. The average reported postoperative Lysholm scores ranged from 85.4 to 96.3, and the average reported postoperative Tegner activity scores ranged from 6.2 to 8.Conclusion:Arthroscopic repair of a meniscal tear in the pediatric and adolescent population is an effective treatment option that has a low failure rate, enhances postoperative clinical outcomes, and preserves meniscal tissues.

Save the meniscus - Clinical outcomes of meniscectomy versus meniscal repair.

This study was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of meniscectomy versus repair and to study the effects of (1) duration of follow-up and (2) concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction on clinical outcomes. A retrospective study was conducted, involving 112 knees of 106 patients who underwent meniscus surgery, either partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair between 2008 and 2016. There were 42 meniscectomies and 70 meniscal repairs. Patients were graded pre- and post-operatively using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Tegner Activity Level Scale through case notes review. Statistical analysis was done using the paired Student's t-test (two-tailed) or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired scores. The two-sample Student's t-test (two-tailed) or Mann-Whitney U test was used for independent scores. Multiple variable linear regression analysis was used to assess the importance of the variables on outcomes. A statistical significance is taken as p < 0.05. Meniscectomy and repair had good outcomes. IKDC scores improved from 46.6 to 81.7 after meniscectomy and from 45.9 to 84.4 after repair ( p < 0.001). Meniscectomy fared worse in late follow-up (>18 months), decreasing from 88.2 in early follow-up (≤18 months) to 72.1 ( p < 0.05). The post-operative scores in meniscal repair were maintained in the late follow-up group (82.9 compared to 87.1, p > 0.05). Concomitant ACL reconstruction improved the outcomes of meniscectomy (IKDC and Tegner: p < 0.05) and repair (IKDC and Tegner: p < 0.05). Both meniscectomy and meniscal repair are viable surgical techniques for meniscal injury and have good outcomes. Meniscal repair has a better prognosis in the long run.

The posterolateral corner of the knee

The posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee refers to a complex of structures that play a key role in knee stability. The main three structures in the PLC of the knee are the lateral collateral ligament, the popliteus and the popliteofibular ligament. These are primarily restraints to varus and external rotation forces. As such, mechanisms of injury include varus and hyperextension, and are typically high energy. These injuries are rarely isolated and are commonly associated with other injuries such as cruciate ligament injury or tibiofemoral knee dislocation. If undetected or untreated, PLC injuries can cause severe long-term disability due to instability and cartilage degeneration. Failure to recognize these injuries can also jeopardize the results of concomitant anterior or posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Immediate management in acute injuries involves assessment and treatment of any associated neurovascular injury, especially to the popliteal artery or peroneal nerve, and reduction of knee dislocation. Acute repairs of the damaged structures can be undertaken, but ligament reconstruction is often required, using either autograft or allograft. Graft reconstruction procedures can be fibula-based or anatomic, each having their own merits. The timing of surgery can be acute, chronic or staged, depending on the exact nature of the injury and on timing.

Seventeen-Year Follow-up After Meniscal Repair With Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in a Pediatric and Adolescent Population

Background: Studies have shown good and excellent clinical and radiographic results after meniscal repair. Limited published information exists on the long-term outcomes, however, especially in a pediatric and adolescent population. Purpose: To determine long-term results of meniscal repair and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in a pediatric and adolescent population. Specifically, the aims were to determine the clinical success rate of meniscal repair with concomitant ACL reconstruction, compare results with midterm outcomes, and analyze risk factors for failure. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Cases of meniscal repair with concomitant ACL reconstruction between 1990 and 2005 were reviewed among patients aged ≤18 years. Patient demographics, injury history, and surgical details were recorded, and risk factors for failure were analyzed. Physical examination findings and clinical outcomes at latest available follow-up were collected. Subjective knee outcomes were compared with midterm results. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were used to evaluate the available data. Results: Forty-seven patients (30 females, 17 males) with a mean age of 16 years (SD, 1.37) and a mean follow-up of 16.6 years (SD, 3.57) were included in this study. Overall, 13 patients (28%) failed meniscal repair and required repeat surgery at the time of final follow-up. Of the 13 failures, 9 underwent a subsequent meniscectomy; 2, meniscectomy and revision ACL reconstruction; 1, meniscal repair and revision ACL reconstruction; and 1, meniscal repair and subsequent meniscectomy. Mean International Knee Documentation Committee scores improved from 47.9 preoperatively to 87.7 postoperatively (P < .01), and the mean score at long-term follow-up (87.7) did not significantly differ from that at the midterm follow-up (88.5) at a mean 7.4 years (P = .97). Mean Tegner Activity Scale scores improved from 1.9 preoperatively to 6.3 postoperatively (P < .01) and decreased from 8.3 at preinjury to 6.3 at final long-term follow-up (P < .01). Conclusion: In conclusion, the long-term overall clinical success rate (failure-free survival) was 72% for repair of pediatric and adolescent meniscal tears in the setting of concomitant ACL reconstruction. Patients reported excellent knee subjective outcome scores that remained favorable when compared with midterm follow-up.

The Demographic and Geographic Trends of Meniscal Procedures in New York State: An Analysis of 649,470 Patients Over 13 years.

The purpose of this study was to examine the geographic and demographic variations and time trends of different types of meniscal procedures in New York State to determine whether disparities exist in access to treatment. The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) outpatient database was reviewed to identify patients who underwent elective, primary knee arthroscopy between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2015, for 1 of the following diagnosis-related categories: Group 1, meniscectomy; Group 2, meniscal repair; and Group 3, meniscal allograft transplantation, with or without anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The 3 groups of meniscal procedures were compared on geographic distribution, patient age, insurance, concomitant ACLR, and surgeon and hospital volume over the study period. A total of 649,470 patients who underwent knee arthroscopy between 2003 and 2015 were identified for analysis. Both meniscectomies and meniscal repairs had a scattered distribution throughout New York State, with allograft volume concentrated at urban academic hospitals. The majority of patients who underwent any meniscal procedure had private insurance, with Medicaid patients having the lowest rates of meniscal surgery. At high-volume hospitals, meniscal repairs and allografts are being performed with increasing frequency, especially in patients <25 years of age. Meniscal repairs are being performed concomitantly with ACLR with increasing frequency. Meniscal repairs and allografts are being performed at high-volume hospitals for privately insured patients with increasing frequency. Geographic access to these treatments, particularly allografts, is limited. Disparities in the availability of advanced meniscal treatment require further investigation and understanding to improve access to care.

Comparative Outcomes of Radial and Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tear Repair: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Background: Full-thickness radial meniscal tears render the meniscus nonfunctional and have historically been treated with partial meniscectomy. As preservative techniques evolve for radial repair, comparisons with other tear patterns are necessary to evaluate repair efficacy and prognosis. Purpose: To assess clinical outcomes and reoperation rates of radial meniscal repair and to compare them to bucket-handle meniscal repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Radial and bucket-handle meniscal tears without concurrent root injuries undergoing surgical repair at a single institution between 2007 and 2015 were analyzed, including both all-inside and inside-out suturing techniques. Propensity matching was performed on the basis of age at surgery, sex, meniscus laterality, body mass index (BMI), and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a comparison pool of 70 bucket-handle repairs. Reoperation-free survival rates and Tegner, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were analyzed. Results: Twenty-four patients (18 male, 6 female; mean age, 22.8 ± 11.9 years) who underwent repair of a radial meniscal tear were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (range, 2.0-6.3 years). Significant postoperative improvements in VAS scores at rest and with use and IKDC scores were noted postoperatively (P < .001). Five patients (20.8%) required a reoperation. Subsequently, 18 patients with radial tears (mean age, 19.1 ± 9.1 years; 12 male; mean BMI, 27.0 ± 6.2 kg/m2; 3 medial; 11 ACLR) were propensity matched to 18 patients with bucket-handle tears (mean age, 20.8 ± 5.1 years; 13 male; mean BMI, 25.0 ± 3.5 kg/m2; 3 medial; 11 ACLR). The matched radial and bucket-handle groups demonstrated similar (P = .17) reoperation-free survival rates at 2 years (88.9% and 94.4%, respectively) and 5 years (77.8% and 87.7%, respectively). VAS and IKDC scores improved significantly after surgery (P < .001), with no difference noted between the groups (P ≥ .17). Patients with radial and bucket-handle meniscal repairs achieved mean postoperative Tegner scores (6.6 and 6.6, respectively) not significantly different from their preinjury levels (6.9 and 6.7, respectively) (P ≥ .32). Conclusion: Satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable for radial meniscal tear repair at short-term follow-up. In a robustly matched comparison, radial and bucket-handle meniscal tears demonstrate similar improvements in VAS and IKDC scores, restoration of preoperative Tegner scores, and acceptable reoperation rates. Full-thickness radial meniscal tears should be considered for repair.

Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Background:There are limited data comparing the outcomes of all-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair techniques.Purpose:To assess failure rates and clinical outcomes after the surgical repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears utilizing either an all-inside or inside-out technique.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Patients with bucket-handle meniscal tears undergoing all-inside or inside-out repair at a single institution between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. A total of 28 mensici repaired utilizing second-generation all-inside suturing devices and 42 menisci repaired using an inside-out technique were eligible for inclusion. Rigorous propensity matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, tear laterality, rim width, and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resulting in a total of 40 patients equally distributed between the 2 repair techniques for comparison. Retear-free survival as well as preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and physical examination findings were subsequently analyzed.Results:Twenty patients who underwent all-inside repair (14 male; mean age, 23.7 ± 6.7 years) were successfully propensity matched to 20 patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair (15 male; mean age, 22.5 ± 7.6 years), with a mean retear-free follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 2.5-7.4 years). Four (20%) all-inside repairs and 4 (20%) inside-out repairs failed over the course of follow-up (P > .999), with a mean time to failure of 2.7 years (range, 1.3-4.4 years) and 5.0 years (range, 0.8-7.5 years), respectively (P = .25). Increasing patient age trended toward a decreased clinical retear rate, independent of the repair technique (hazard ratio, 0.86; P = .056). There were no significant differences in the Tegner scores, IKDC scores, or range of motion between the groups as a whole or when subcategorizing by age, sex, body mass index, tear complexity, rim width, isolated versus concomitant ACLR, or medial- versus lateral-sided repair. There were no complications in the all-inside group, while there was a 10% rate of minor complications in the inside-out group (P = .49).Conclusion:Overall, satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable at short-term to midterm follow-up with both inside-out and all-inside repair techniques of bucket-handle meniscal tears in rigorously matched patients with similar meniscal tear patterns.

Fibular Collateral Ligament: Varus Stress Radiographic Analysis Using 3 Different Clinical Techniques.

Background:Fibular collateral ligament (FCL) tears are challenging to diagnose. Left untreated, FCL tears lead to residual ligament instability and increased joint loading on the medial compartment of the knee. Additionally, when a concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is performed, increased forces on reconstruction grafts occur, which may lead to premature graft failure. Stress radiographs constitute a reliable and validated technique for the objective assessment of a complete grade III FCL tear.Purpose:To evaluate side-to-side difference (SSD) values of lateral compartment gapping on varus stress radiographs in patients with a grade III injury to the FCL. Additionally, to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of 3 different measurement techniques that used various radiographic reference points.Study Design:Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.Methods:Inclusion criteria were patients who sustained an FCL with or without a concomitant ACL injury and underwent a combined FCL + ACL reconstruction between 2010 and 2016. Patients were excluded if they had a complete posterolateral corner injury, open physes, intra-articular fracture, meniscal root tear, other ligament injury, or prior surgery on either knee. All FCL tears were diagnosed with a clinical varus stress examination at 0° and 20° of knee flexion and varus stress radiographs at 20° of knee flexion measured in 3 different locations. The SSD for lateral compartment gapping was obtained from the varus stress radiographs and then statistically compared for interrater and intrarater reliability.Results:A total of 98 consecutive patients (50 males, 48 females; 13 isolated FCL injuries, 85 combined ACL + FCL injuries) with mean age 33.6 years (range, 18-69 years) were included. Measurement techniques 1, 2, and 3 had mean ± SD lateral compartment SSDs of 2.4 ± 0.20 mm, 2.2 ± 0.20 mm, and 2.0 ± 0.03 mm, respectively (no significant differences). Interrater reliabilities for the 3 measuring techniques were 0.83, 0.86, and 0.91, respectively, while intrarater reliabilities were 0.99, 0.77, and 0.99, respectively.Conclusion:This study demonstrated a lower SSD value of 2.2 mm to be consistent with a grade III FCL tear on clinician-applied varus stress radiographs in the clinical setting. Although all SSD measurement locations had excellent reliability, the method using the midpoint of the lateral tibial plateau was found to be the most reproducible.

Meniscus repairs can be saved in the event of postoperative septic arthritis.

No systematic studies on optimal treatment of postoperative septic arthritis following arthroscopic meniscus repair are available. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the fate of repaired menisci in cases of postoperative septic arthritis, with treatment for infection focused on arthroscopic irrigation and debridement (I&D) and intention to maintain the meniscus. Data of two sports orthopedics centers of the last 10 years were pooled (approximately 25,000 arthroscopic procedures of the knee). All cases of septic arthritis following arthroscopic meniscus repair were identified. These cases were retrospectively evaluated with regard to clinical course and management, especially the number of necessary I&Ds, if eradication was achieved, and if the repaired meniscus was retained or a partial resection was necessary ('early failure'). Patients with initially maintained meniscus repairs were contacted if further meniscus surgery was performed in further follow-up ('late failure'). 20 patients with 23 repaired menisci were included. In 65% (13 cases), a concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed. A mean of 2.0 ± 1.0 (1-4) arthroscopic I&Ds were performed in the treatment of septic arthritis. In two cases, additional open surgery was performed(after outside-in sutures). Eradication was achieved in all cases. Four repaired menisci (17.4%) showed loosened fixation or substantial degradation and were consequently partially resected within treatment for septic arthritis (early failures). The follow-up rate for the 19 initially maintained menisci was 94.7% after 3.0 ± 2.2years (median 2.8, 0.4-7.8). Three of these underwent further partial resection (13.0%). Cumulative 3-year survival rate (Kaplan-Meier method) of all repairs was 70.7% (95% CI 50.3-91.1%), and for the subgroup of initially maintained menisci 85.6% (95% CI 67.0-100.0%), respectively. Septic arthritis following meniscus repair can be successfully treated with (sequential) arthroscopic I&Ds. There is a considerable rate of early failures, however, in a mid-term follow-up the failure rate of initially retained menisci is low and comparable to what we know from the literaturefor cases without infection. Therefore, it is generally recommended totry to save the repaired menisci in these cases. IV, therapeutic case series.

No evidence for the most appropriate postoperative rehabilitation protocol following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with concomitant articular cartilage lesions: a systematic review.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture commonly occurs in conjunction with articular cartilage injury. However, there is no consensus on the most appropriate rehabilitation which should be carried out for ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and the surgical management of articular cartilage lesions of the knee. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the recommended rehabilitation protocol for patients undergoing ACLR with concomitant articular cartilage injury with a view to develop guidelines on the most appropriate treatment. Two reviewers independently searched five database for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised comparative and retrospective cohort studies (CS) describing the management of concomitant ACL rupture and articular cartilage injury and the postoperative rehabilitation regimen. Risk of bias was performed using a modified Downs & Black's checklist. The primary outcome was specific rehabilitation protocols including weight-bearing status, immobilisation, continuous passive motion (CPM), and return to play criteria. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes. A best evidence synthesis was performed. The review yielded six studies which reported on rehabilitation techniques. All studies were of low methodological quality. There was considerable variability in not only the chondral lesion reported but also the treatment techniques utilised and especially the rehabilitation regimes. No consensus was found on weight-bearing status, postoperative immobilisation, the use of CPM, or return to play criteria. Given the quality of the papers, there was no evidence to recommend any specific rehabilitation regime in the postoperative management of concomitant ACLR and articular cartilage lesions. This systematic review revealed that despite how common concomitant ACL rupture and articular cartilage injury is, there is no evidence to support one, most appropriate rehabilitation protocol. From a clinical perspective, decisions on postoperative rehabilitation for patients undergoing ACLR and treatment of articular cartilage lesions should be made on a case-by-case basis with criteria-based progression until more robust evidence becomes available. A list of specific rehabilitation protocols based on the cartilage restoration technique is provided. IV.

The Influence of Full-Thickness Chondral Defects on Outcomes Following Meniscal Allograft Transplantation: A Comparative Study

To compare a series of patients who underwent meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) with full-thickness chondral defects (FTD) with those with no chondral defect (ND) with regard to the following: change in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from baseline to 2-year follow-up and baseline to the final follow-up (including comparisons to minimal clinically important differences), complications and complication rates, reoperations and reoperation rates/timing, and failures and time to failure (revision MAT or conversion to total knee arthroplasty). Patients who underwent isolated medial or lateral MAT between September 1997 and March 2013 with a minimum of 2years of follow-up were retrospectively identified and split into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of FTD (femoral condyle or tibial plateau) identified intraoperatively after debridement to allow for a better understanding of the lesion characteristics (when applicable): ND (Outerbridge grade 0/I) or FTD (Outerbridge grade IV). Patients with osteochondritis dissecans were eligible for inclusion, as were those with isolated single lesions, multiple lesions, or bipolar lesions. Those with a moderate Outerbridge grade (II and III)-whether treated or neglected-were excluded given the poorer reliability of grading intermediate lesions. Indications for MAT included those patients with subjective complaints (persistent joint-line pain) and objective findings (previous meniscectomy or nonviable meniscus state with pain localized to the affected compartment) of functional meniscal deficiency. All lateral MAT patients used a bridge-in-slot surgical technique, as did most medial MAT patients (few patients with earlier surgical dates received a keyhole technique). All FTD were treated concurrently at the time of index MAT with cartilage restoration procedures (microfracture, autologous chondrocyte implantation, DeNovo particulate cartilage grafting, or osteochondral auto/allografting). Reoperations, failures (revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty), and PRO deltas were reported comparing baseline to 2-year follow-up and baseline to the final follow-up. Intergroup comparisons were made using Bonferroni-adjusted independent sample t-tests for continuous variables and χ-square for categorical variables. A total of 91 patients (22 ND and 69 FTD) were identified and followed for a mean 4.48 ± 2.63 and 3.84 ± 2.47years, respectively. There were no significant between-group differences in age, body mass index, or number of prior surgeries. The mean chondral lesion size in the FTD group was 4.43 ± 2.5cm2. Concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed significantly more in ND-group patients than FTD-group patients (8 [38.1%] vs 8 [11.8%], P= .004). There were no differences between ND-group and FTD-group patients in concomitant realignment procedures performed (2 [9.1%] vs 7 [10.1%], P= .986), or prior ligament reconstruction (9 [40.9%] vs 18 [26.1%], P= .111) or realignment procedure (0 [0%] vs 0 [0%]). FTD-group patients underwent concomitant osteochondral allograft (69.6%), autologous chondrocyte implantation (18.8%), microfracture (13.0%), osteochondral autograft (4.3%), or DeNovo juvenile particulate cartilage implantation (1.4%). A comparison of the patient groups found no statistically significant differences in PROs preoperatively (P > .003 for all). Intergroup comparisons of both the 2-year and final follow-up delta PRO scores showed no statistically (P > .003 for all) or clinically (number of PROs meeting minimal clinically important differences) significant differences. One complication occurred (fractured hardware) in the FTD-group patients (1.3%). There were no differences in the number of subsequent surgeries (revision MAT: ND, 2 (10.0%) vs FTD, 8 (12.9%); P= .845) or failures (conversion to total knee arthroplasty: ND, 1 (5.0%) vs FTD, 2 (3.3%); P= .646). When comparing a patient series with FTD who underwent MAT with a patient series with ND, there were no differences in the change in individual PROs from preoperative to the final follow-up. Similarly, there were no differences in complications or failure between those with ND or FTD diagnosed intraoperatively. The results of the current study suggest that chondral damage identified and treated by cartilage restoration means at the time of MAT may not affect the clinical outcomes of MAT. Level III, retrospective comparative study.