Meniscus repair with simultaneous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Clinical outcomes, failure rates and subsequent processing.
10.1016/j.cjtee.2021.09.005
- Author:
Yu-Ping YANG
1
;
Xiao MA
2
;
Hua AN
2
;
Xiao-Peng LIU
2
;
Ning AN
2
;
Ying-Fang AO
3
Author Information
1. Department of Sports Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital-Chongli, Zhangjiakou, 076350, Hebei province, China.
2. Department of Sports Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Institute of Sports Medicine of Peking University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Sports Injuries, Beijing, 100191, China.
3. Department of Sports Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Institute of Sports Medicine of Peking University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Sports Injuries, Beijing, 100191, China. Electronic address: yingfang.ao@vip.sina.com.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction;
Arthroscopy;
Failure of repair;
Meniscus
- MeSH:
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries/surgery*;
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction;
Humans;
Menisci, Tibial/surgery*;
Meniscus;
Retrospective Studies
- From:
Chinese Journal of Traumatology
2022;25(1):37-44
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE:To retrospectively analyze the clinical outcomes of meniscus repair with simultaneous anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and explore the causes of failure of meniscus repair.
METHODS:From May 2013 to July 2018, the clinical data of 165 patients who were treated with meniscus surgery and simultaneous ACL reconstruction, including 69 cases of meniscus repair (repair group) and 96 cases of partial meniscectomy (partial meniscectomy group) were retrospectively analyzed. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) ACL rupture associated with fracture, collateral ligament injury, or complex ligament injury; (2) a history of knee surgery; or (3) a significant degree of osteoarthritis. The 69 patients in the repair group were divided into the non-failure group (62 cases) and the failure group (7 cases) depending on the repair effect. Postoperative outcomes of the repair group and the partial meniscectomy group were compared. General conditions and postoperative outcomes of the failure group and the non-failure group were compared. During the median follow-up period of 28 months (range, 4 - 65 months) after the second arthroscopy, postoperative outcomes of seven patients in the failure group were summarized. SPSS 25.0 statistical software was used for statistical analysis. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS:Seven patients in the failure group who underwent the second arthroscopy were followed up for (30 ± 17.4) months and their postoperative outcomes were summarized. Compared with the partial meniscectomy group, the International Knee Documentation Committee scores of patients in the repair group improved significantly (p = 0.031). Compared with the non-failure group, more patients in the failure group were younger than 24 years (p = 0.030). The median follow-up period was 39.5 months. All patients recovered well after subsequent partial meniscectomy and relieved clinical symptoms. Visual analog scale scores decreased significantly (p = 0.026), and the International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores improved significantly (p = 0.046 for both).
CONCLUSION:The failure rate of meniscus repair in this study was 10.1% (7/69), all of which were medial meniscus tears. However, the surgical outcomes of ACL reconstruction were not affected, and there might be a role for graft protection. Therefore, meniscus retears can be successful treated by performing subsequent partial meniscectomy in patients with repair failure.
