Dataset Information

Good Surgical Outcomes After Concomitant Repair of Double Radial Tears of the Lateral Meniscus and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To describe double radial tears of the lateral meniscus (LM), report early clinical treatment outcomes, and determine reoperation and failure rates.

Methods

Twenty-one (N = 21) consecutive cases of arthroscopic-treated lateral meniscus double radial tears treated between 2012 and 2018 were reviewed, including 15 males (71.4%) and 6 females (28.6%). Meniscus repairs were all performed at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Patients with associated fractures or prior surgeries were excluded. Concomitant injuries were reported, as were preinjury and postoperative Tegner scores, preoperative and postoperative visual analogue pain scale (VAS) scores, and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores. Reoperation and failure rates were documented.

Results

Twenty-one (N = 21) tears were located in the posterior horn of the meniscus near the root attachment; 15 (71.4%) underwent all-inside repair, 4 (19.0%) underwent transtibial pull-through repair, 1 (4.8%) was partially debrided, and 1 (4.8%) was left untreated. Twenty-one tears (N = 21) were in the body of the meniscus; 7 (33.3%) were repaired, 7 (33.3%) were partially debrided, and 7 (33.3%) were left untreated. Thirteen patients (62%) had associated medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries. Mean follow-up was 2.6 years. VAS at rest and with activity improved by 2.1 points (P < .001) and 3.1 points (P = .017) after surgery. The mean postoperative Tegner activity score was 6.4, and the mean IKDC score was 83.2 at final follow-up. Reoperation was required in 5 patients (23.8%), and the surgical treatment failed in 1 patient (4.7%).

Conclusions

Double radial tears of the LM are uncommon injuries that occur in the setting of ACL tears, usually combined with MCL injury. The variety of surgical treatment techniques have a low failure rate at short-term follow-up. Patients tend to have good clinical outcomes with improvement in pain and overall function after surgically treating these injuries with simultaneous ACL reconstruction.

Level of evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study, case series.

SUBMITTER: Leafblad ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8365194 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the incidence of complete lateral meniscal posterior root tears (LMPRTs) repaired at revision as compared with primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (PACLR) and to determine whether other demographic or surgical characteristics were associated with LMPRTs needing repair.MethodsA chart review was performed to identify the PACLR and revision ACL reconstruction (RACLR) cohorts. Demographic and surgical characteristics were recorded. Cases with concurrent lateral meniscal posterior root repair were identified. Cases were classified as acute (<5 months) or chronic (>5 months) based on the time from reported injury to surgery. Tunnel malposition in revision cases was recorded if either tunnel or both tunnels were malpositioned on radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging.ResultsData from 167 cases, 140 PACLR and 27 RACLR cases, were included. The cohorts had similar demographic characteristics including age, sex, and lateral meniscal injury. The overall incidence of lateral meniscal root repair in ACL reconstruction patients was 12.6% (21 of 167 patients). The incidence of LMPRT repair was 7.1% (10 of 140 patients) in the PACLR cohort versus 40.7% (11 of 27 patients) in the RACLR cohort. The revision cohort was significantly more likely to have a chronic injury (66.7% [18 of 27 patients] vs 31.4% [44 of 140 patients]). The most significant predictor of concurrent lateral meniscal posterior root repair was RACLR versus PACLR for both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses (χ2 = 20.603; P < .0001; odds ratio, 13.887; 95% confidence interval, 1.531-125.993). Analysis of tunnel positions for the revision group revealed that PACLR tunnel malposition was a significant predictor of LMPRTs (χ2 = 4.91, P = .027).ConclusionsComplete LMPRTs warranting repair are encountered with a significantly greater frequency at RACLR as compared with PACLR. The overall incidence of LMPRT repair at RACLR is high. In this cohort, LMPRT repair in RACLR cases was associated with tunnel malposition of the PACLR.Level of evidenceLevel III, retrospective cohort study.

Project description:AimsCurrently, it is advised to perform meniscal repair instead of meniscectomy in certain cases of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the level of evidence is low. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of meniscectomy and meniscus repair in addition to ACLR.MethodsThe systematic search was conducted in three online databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane) from inception until October 2021 for the literature on primary ACLR and concomitant meniscal surgery. Eligible studies compared the following outcomes between meniscal repair and meniscectomy groups: the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and KT-arthrometer examinations. Lastly, we calculated pooled mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) from the change between pre- and post-intervention values.ResultsOf 10,565 studies, 22 met the inclusion criteria, with a follow-up between 6 and 43 months. We found no difference when comparing the KOOS subscale changes-only in the KOOS pain subscale (MD = -1.6; CI: -2.48, -0.72). However, these results were not clinically significant. We analyzed the lateral and media meniscal injuries separately and concluded the same results regarding KOOS changes. We found no significant differences in the Lysholm score change (MD = -2.61; CI: -5.51, 0.29), changes in IKDC score (MD = 1.08; CI: -4.05, 6.21) or the change for the KT-arthrometer side-to-side difference (MD = -0.50; CI: -1.06, 0.06).ConclusionBased on our result, we did not find a clinically significant difference between meniscus repair and meniscectomy during primary ACLR regarding patient-reported outcomes in a short-term follow-up.Translational potentialOur research supports the prompt integration of findings into clinical practice for treating meniscus injuries during ACL reconstruction. We recommend considering both meniscus repair and meniscectomy, as the available data indicate their effectiveness. Further studies are necessary to assess the long-term impacts, particularly on osteoarthritis, and to identify patient subgroups that may benefit most from each technique.