Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2020 Oct;48(12):2978-2985.
doi: 10.1177/0363546520948850. Epub 2020 Aug 21.

Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results From the MARS Cohort

MARS Group  1 ; Rick W Wright, Laura J Huston, Amanda K Haas, Samuel K Nwosu, Christina R Allen, Allen F Anderson, Daniel E Cooper, Thomas M DeBerardino, Warren R Dunn, Brett Brick A Lantz, Barton Mann, Kurt P Spindler, Michael J Stuart, Jacquelyn S Pennings, John P Albright, Annunziato Ned Amendola, Jack T Andrish, Christopher C Annunziata, Robert A Arciero, Bernard R Bach Jr, Champ L Baker 3rd, Arthur R Bartolozzi, Keith M Baumgarten, Jeffery R Bechler, Jeffrey H Berg, Geoffrey A Bernas, Stephen F Brockmeier, Robert H Brophy, Charles A Bush-Joseph, J Brad Butler V, John D Campbell, James L Carey, James E Carpenter, Brian J Cole, Jonathan M Cooper, Charles L Cox, R Alexander Creighton, Diane L Dahm, Tal S David, David C Flanigan, Robert W Frederick, Theodore J Ganley, Elizabeth A Garofoli, Charles J Gatt Jr, Steven R Gecha, James Robert Giffin, Sharon L Hame, Jo A Hannafin, Christopher D Harner, Norman Lindsay Harris Jr, Keith S Hechtman, Elliott B Hershman, Rudolf G Hoellrich, Timothy M Hosea, David C Johnson, Timothy S Johnson, Morgan H Jones, Christopher C Kaeding, Ganesh V Kamath, Thomas E Klootwyk, Bruce A Levy, C Benjamin Ma, G Peter Maiers 2nd, Robert G Marx, Matthew J Matava, Gregory M Mathien, David R McAllister, Eric C McCarty, Robert G McCormack, Bruce S Miller, Carl W Nissen, Daniel F O'Neill, Brett D Owens, Richard D Parker, Mark L Purnell, Arun J Ramappa, Michael A Rauh, Arthur C Rettig, Jon K Sekiya, Kevin G Shea, Orrin H Sherman, James R Slauterbeck, Matthew V Smith, Jeffrey T Spang, Ltc Steven J Svoboda, Timothy N Taft, Joachim J Tenuta, Edwin M Tingstad, Armando F Vidal, Darius G Viskontas, Richard A White, James S Williams Jr, Michelle L Wolcott, Brian R Wolf, James J York
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results From the MARS Cohort

MARS Group et al. Am J Sports Med. 2020 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health. This has been a successful intervention in patients with isolated tears and tears associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction have not been documented.

Purpose: To examine the prevalence and 2-year operative success rate of meniscal repairs in the revision ACL setting.

Study design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: All cases of revision ACL reconstruction with concomitant meniscal repair from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Two-year follow-up was obtained by phone and email to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred to either knee since the initial revision ACL reconstruction. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify the pathologic condition and subsequent treatment.

Results: In total, 218 patients (18%) from 1205 revision ACL reconstructions underwent concurrent meniscal repairs. There were 235 repairs performed: 153 medial, 48 lateral, and 17 medial and lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 178; 76%) were performed with all-inside techniques. Two-year surgical follow-up was obtained on 90% (197/218) of the cohort. Overall, the meniscal repair failure rate was 8.6% (17/197) at 2 years. Of the 17 failures, 15 were medial (13 all-inside, 2 inside-out) and 2 were lateral (both all-inside). Four medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACL reconstruction.

Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACL reconstruction setting does not have a high failure rate at 2-year follow-up. Failure rates for medial and lateral repairs were both <10% and consistent with success rates of primary ACL reconstruction meniscal repair. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears.

Keywords: ACL reconstruction; failure; meniscus; outcomes; repair; revision.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Bogunovic L, Kruse LM, Haas AK, Huston LJ, Wright RW. Outcome of All-inside Second-Generation Meniscal Repair: Minimum Five-Year Follow-Up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(15):1303–1307. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Borchers JR, Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, et al. Intra-Articular Findings in Primary and Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery: A Comparison of the Moon and Mars Study Groups. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(9):1889–1893. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brophy RH, Haas AK, Huston LJ, Nwosu SK, Group M, Wright RW. Association of Meniscal Status, Lower Extremity Alignment, and Body Mass Index with Chondrosis at Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(7):1616–1622. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brophy RH, Smith MV, Latterman C, et al. Multi-Investigator Collaboration in Orthopaedic Surgery Research Compared to Other Medical Fields. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(10):1523–1528. - PubMed
    1. Chen JL, Allen CR, Stephens TE, et al. Differences in Mechanisms of Failure, Intraoperative Findings, and Surgical Characteristics between Single- and Multiple-Revision Acl Reconstructions: A Mars Cohort Study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(7):1571–1578. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms