Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predictive Factors for Failure of Meniscal Repair: A Retrospective Dual-Center Analysis of 918 Consecutive Cases

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Meniscal surgery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by orthopaedic surgeons. Over the past decade, awareness has increased regarding the importance of meniscal preservation to prevent the development of osteoarthritis in the knee joint. Removal of meniscal tissue can lead to a high risk of cartilage degeneration, and moreover, meniscus-preserving surgery rather than meniscal resection is likely to have better long-term outcomes. Success rates after meniscal repair range from 60% to 95%, but many reports are based on a small number of patients.

          Purpose/Hypothesis:

          The purpose of this study was to review all meniscal repairs and potential predictors for failure during a 12-year period. We hypothesized that meniscal anchors, lateral repairs, and repairs made in conjunction with an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) would have fewer failures than meniscal arrows, medial repairs, and isolated repairs. We also hypothesized that younger patients and acute tears would be associated with fewer failures.

          Study Design:

          Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

          Methods:

          This study was a dual-center, retrospective analysis on consecutive meniscal repairs. The surgical protocols were reviewed, including type of tear, location, associated injury to the knee, and surgery. The study endpoint was failure of repair, defined as a need for reoperation and secondary partial or total meniscal resection, within 3 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess repair survival, with multivariate Cox regression to adjust for confounders.

          Results:

          A total of 954 meniscal repairs were performed on 918 patients (536 male patients [58%]; 382 female patients [42%]) with a mean age of 26 years (range, 12-60 years). The failure rate for the entire cohort was 22.5%. Bioabsorbable arrows had significantly more failures than all-inside sutures with anchors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5; P = .002). Medial meniscal repairs had a higher failure rate than lateral meniscal repairs (HR, 3.7; 95% CI, 2.3-6.0; P < .001). Simultaneous ACLR resulted in less failure than when no simultaneous ACLR was performed (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .009). Age at repair and acuity of tear did not affect the outcome ( P = .6 and .07, respectively).

          Conclusion:

          The failure rate after meniscal repair was significantly higher on the medial side, especially when using arrows. Meniscal repairs performed concomitantly with an ACLR result in fewer reoperations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Increased risk of osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 14-year follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial.

          The reported prevalence of radiological osteoarthritis (OA) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction varies from 10% to 90%. Purpose/
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meniscal repair outcomes at greater than five years: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

            Meniscal repair offers the potential to avoid the long-term articular cartilage deterioration that has been shown to result after meniscectomy. Failure of the meniscal repair can occur several years postoperatively. Limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of meniscal repair exists. We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the outcomes of meniscal repair at a minimum of five years postoperatively. Pooling of data and meta-analysis with a random-effects model were performed to evaluate the results. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of meniscal repair failure (reoperation or clinical failure) was 23.1% (131 of 566). The pooled rate of failure varied from 20.2% to 24.3% depending on the status of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), the meniscus repaired, and the technique utilized. The rate of failure was similar for the medial and the lateral meniscus as well as for patients with an intact and a reconstructed ACL. A systematic review of the outcomes of meniscal repair at greater than five years postoperatively demonstrated very similar rates of meniscal failure (22.3% to 24.3%) for all techniques investigated. The outcomes of meniscal repair at greater than five years postoperatively have not yet been reported for modern all-inside repair devices.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of inside-out and all-inside techniques for the repair of isolated meniscal tears: a systematic review.

              Arthroscopic meniscal repair techniques are continuing to evolve. Most studies to date comparing the healing rate of inside-out to all-inside meniscal repair techniques are confounded by associated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction or deficiency.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Orthop J Sports Med
                Orthop J Sports Med
                OJS
                spojs
                Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                2325-9671
                27 March 2020
                March 2020
                : 8
                : 3
                : 2325967120905529
                Affiliations
                []Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm Sports Trauma Research Center/Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
                []Södersjukhuset, KISÖS, Stockholm, Sweden.
                [5-2325967120905529] Investigation performed at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm Sports Trauma Research Center, Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Erik Ronnblad, MD, Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm Sports Trauma Research Center, Valhallavagen 91, 114 86 Stockholm, Sweden (email: erik.ronnblad@ 123456capio.se ).
                Article
                10.1177_2325967120905529
                10.1177/2325967120905529
                7137129
                32284936
                15588d70-1656-4e80-b86d-4e37ab8deb98
                © The Author(s) 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 12 November 2019
                : 25 November 2019
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                corrected-proof
                ts3

                meniscal repair,meniscal suture,meniscal arrows,failure,acl reconstruction

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content545

                Cited by26

                Most referenced authors392