Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: 6-Year Follow-up Results From the MARS Cohort
- PMID: 41220248
- PMCID: PMC12657664
- DOI: 10.1177/03635465251387333
Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: 6-Year Follow-up Results From the MARS Cohort
Abstract
Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented.
Purpose: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair.
Study design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
Methods: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment.
Results: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears (P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups.
Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.
Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; meniscal repair; outcomes; revision.
Conflict of interest statement
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This project was funded by grant No. 5R01 AR060846 from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. D.E.C. has received royalties or license from DJO and Stryker; and consulting fees from DJO. T.M.D. has received royalties, consulting fees, and speaking fees from Arthrex; and consulting fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals American. K.P.S. has received support for education from Summit Surgical and consulting fees from NovoPedics. M.J.S. has received royalties, consulting fees, and speaking fees from Arthrex; and grant and support for education from Smith & Nephew. A.A. has received royalties and consulting fees from Arthrex; consulting fees from LimaCorporate and DJO; travel support from Lima USA; support for education from Southtech Orthopedics and Tricoast Surgical Solutions; and acquisitions and investment interest in Anika Therapeutics. C.C.A. has received support for education from Arthrex and Supreme Orthopedics Systems. R.A.A. has received acquisitions and consulting fees from Linvatec Coporation; and consulting fees from Biorez and Smith & Nephew. B.R.B. has received consulting fees from OsteoCentric Technologies. C.L.B. has received travel support from Arthrex and CGG Medical. K.M.B. has received consulting fees from Miach Orthopaedics, Stryker, and Wright Medical Technology. J.H.B. has received support for education from Supreme Orthopedic Systems. G.A.B. has received support for education from Prodigy Surgical Distribution. S.F.B. has received consulting fees and royalties from Arthrex and Exactech; and royalties from Zimmer Biomet Holdings. C.A.B.J. has received a grant from DJO. J.B.B. has received consulting fees from DePuy and Medical Device Business Services; and support for education from Steelhead Surgical. J.L.C. has received consulting fees and honoraria from Vericel; speaking fees from Arthrex; and consulting fees from Bioventus and Joint Restoration Foundation; he is an associate editor for
Figures
References
-
- Asahina S, Muneta T, Hoshino A, Niga S, Yamamoto H. Intermediate-term results of meniscal repair in anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med. 1998;26(5):688-691. - PubMed
-
- Buckland DM, Sadoghi P, Wimmer MD, et al. Meta-analysis on biomechanical properties of meniscus repairs: are devices better than sutures? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(1):83-89. - PubMed
-
- Buseck MS, Noyes FR. Arthroscopic evaluation of meniscal repairs after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and immediate motion. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19(5):489-494. - PubMed
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous
