Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears

A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Brian T. Samuelsen, Nicholas R. Johnson, Mario Hevesi, Bruce A Levy, Diane L. Dahm, Michael J. Stuart, Aaron Krych

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There are limited data comparing the outcomes of all-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair techniques. Purpose: To assess failure rates and clinical outcomes after the surgical repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears utilizing either an all-inside or inside-out technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with bucket-handle meniscal tears undergoing all-inside or inside-out repair at a single institution between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. A total of 28 mensici repaired utilizing second-generation all-inside suturing devices and 42 menisci repaired using an inside-out technique were eligible for inclusion. Rigorous propensity matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, tear laterality, rim width, and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resulting in a total of 40 patients equally distributed between the 2 repair techniques for comparison. Retear-free survival as well as preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and physical examination findings were subsequently analyzed. Results: Twenty patients who underwent all-inside repair (14 male; mean age, 23.7 ± 6.7 years) were successfully propensity matched to 20 patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair (15 male; mean age, 22.5 ± 7.6 years), with a mean retear-free follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 2.5-7.4 years). Four (20%) all-inside repairs and 4 (20%) inside-out repairs failed over the course of follow-up (P >.999), with a mean time to failure of 2.7 years (range, 1.3-4.4 years) and 5.0 years (range, 0.8-7.5 years), respectively (P =.25). Increasing patient age trended toward a decreased clinical retear rate, independent of the repair technique (hazard ratio, 0.86; P =.056). There were no significant differences in the Tegner scores, IKDC scores, or range of motion between the groups as a whole or when subcategorizing by age, sex, body mass index, tear complexity, rim width, isolated versus concomitant ACLR, or medial- versus lateral-sided repair. There were no complications in the all-inside group, while there was a 10% rate of minor complications in the inside-out group (P =.49). Conclusion: Overall, satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable at short-term to midterm follow-up with both inside-out and all-inside repair techniques of bucket-handle meniscal tears in rigorously matched patients with similar meniscal tear patterns.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume6
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Tears
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Documentation
Knee
Articular Range of Motion
Physical Examination
Tibial Meniscus Injuries
Body Mass Index
Cohort Studies
Equipment and Supplies
Survival

Keywords

  • arthroscopic surgery
  • knee
  • meniscal tear
  • surgical repair

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears : A Propensity-Matched Analysis. / Samuelsen, Brian T.; Johnson, Nicholas R.; Hevesi, Mario; Levy, Bruce A; Dahm, Diane L.; Stuart, Michael J.; Krych, Aaron.

In: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 6, 01.06.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Samuelsen, Brian T. ; Johnson, Nicholas R. ; Hevesi, Mario ; Levy, Bruce A ; Dahm, Diane L. ; Stuart, Michael J. ; Krych, Aaron. / Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears : A Propensity-Matched Analysis. In: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 6, No. 6.
@article{14fbde3eb3bf4ec584d2c2b9a2190647,
title = "Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears: A Propensity-Matched Analysis",
abstract = "Background: There are limited data comparing the outcomes of all-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair techniques. Purpose: To assess failure rates and clinical outcomes after the surgical repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears utilizing either an all-inside or inside-out technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with bucket-handle meniscal tears undergoing all-inside or inside-out repair at a single institution between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. A total of 28 mensici repaired utilizing second-generation all-inside suturing devices and 42 menisci repaired using an inside-out technique were eligible for inclusion. Rigorous propensity matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, tear laterality, rim width, and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resulting in a total of 40 patients equally distributed between the 2 repair techniques for comparison. Retear-free survival as well as preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and physical examination findings were subsequently analyzed. Results: Twenty patients who underwent all-inside repair (14 male; mean age, 23.7 ± 6.7 years) were successfully propensity matched to 20 patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair (15 male; mean age, 22.5 ± 7.6 years), with a mean retear-free follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 2.5-7.4 years). Four (20{\%}) all-inside repairs and 4 (20{\%}) inside-out repairs failed over the course of follow-up (P >.999), with a mean time to failure of 2.7 years (range, 1.3-4.4 years) and 5.0 years (range, 0.8-7.5 years), respectively (P =.25). Increasing patient age trended toward a decreased clinical retear rate, independent of the repair technique (hazard ratio, 0.86; P =.056). There were no significant differences in the Tegner scores, IKDC scores, or range of motion between the groups as a whole or when subcategorizing by age, sex, body mass index, tear complexity, rim width, isolated versus concomitant ACLR, or medial- versus lateral-sided repair. There were no complications in the all-inside group, while there was a 10{\%} rate of minor complications in the inside-out group (P =.49). Conclusion: Overall, satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable at short-term to midterm follow-up with both inside-out and all-inside repair techniques of bucket-handle meniscal tears in rigorously matched patients with similar meniscal tear patterns.",
keywords = "arthroscopic surgery, knee, meniscal tear, surgical repair",
author = "Samuelsen, {Brian T.} and Johnson, {Nicholas R.} and Mario Hevesi and Levy, {Bruce A} and Dahm, {Diane L.} and Stuart, {Michael J.} and Aaron Krych",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/2325967118779045",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
journal = "Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "2325-9671",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears

T2 - A Propensity-Matched Analysis

AU - Samuelsen, Brian T.

AU - Johnson, Nicholas R.

AU - Hevesi, Mario

AU - Levy, Bruce A

AU - Dahm, Diane L.

AU - Stuart, Michael J.

AU - Krych, Aaron

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Background: There are limited data comparing the outcomes of all-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair techniques. Purpose: To assess failure rates and clinical outcomes after the surgical repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears utilizing either an all-inside or inside-out technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with bucket-handle meniscal tears undergoing all-inside or inside-out repair at a single institution between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. A total of 28 mensici repaired utilizing second-generation all-inside suturing devices and 42 menisci repaired using an inside-out technique were eligible for inclusion. Rigorous propensity matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, tear laterality, rim width, and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resulting in a total of 40 patients equally distributed between the 2 repair techniques for comparison. Retear-free survival as well as preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and physical examination findings were subsequently analyzed. Results: Twenty patients who underwent all-inside repair (14 male; mean age, 23.7 ± 6.7 years) were successfully propensity matched to 20 patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair (15 male; mean age, 22.5 ± 7.6 years), with a mean retear-free follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 2.5-7.4 years). Four (20%) all-inside repairs and 4 (20%) inside-out repairs failed over the course of follow-up (P >.999), with a mean time to failure of 2.7 years (range, 1.3-4.4 years) and 5.0 years (range, 0.8-7.5 years), respectively (P =.25). Increasing patient age trended toward a decreased clinical retear rate, independent of the repair technique (hazard ratio, 0.86; P =.056). There were no significant differences in the Tegner scores, IKDC scores, or range of motion between the groups as a whole or when subcategorizing by age, sex, body mass index, tear complexity, rim width, isolated versus concomitant ACLR, or medial- versus lateral-sided repair. There were no complications in the all-inside group, while there was a 10% rate of minor complications in the inside-out group (P =.49). Conclusion: Overall, satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable at short-term to midterm follow-up with both inside-out and all-inside repair techniques of bucket-handle meniscal tears in rigorously matched patients with similar meniscal tear patterns.

AB - Background: There are limited data comparing the outcomes of all-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair techniques. Purpose: To assess failure rates and clinical outcomes after the surgical repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears utilizing either an all-inside or inside-out technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with bucket-handle meniscal tears undergoing all-inside or inside-out repair at a single institution between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. A total of 28 mensici repaired utilizing second-generation all-inside suturing devices and 42 menisci repaired using an inside-out technique were eligible for inclusion. Rigorous propensity matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, tear laterality, rim width, and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resulting in a total of 40 patients equally distributed between the 2 repair techniques for comparison. Retear-free survival as well as preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and physical examination findings were subsequently analyzed. Results: Twenty patients who underwent all-inside repair (14 male; mean age, 23.7 ± 6.7 years) were successfully propensity matched to 20 patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair (15 male; mean age, 22.5 ± 7.6 years), with a mean retear-free follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 2.5-7.4 years). Four (20%) all-inside repairs and 4 (20%) inside-out repairs failed over the course of follow-up (P >.999), with a mean time to failure of 2.7 years (range, 1.3-4.4 years) and 5.0 years (range, 0.8-7.5 years), respectively (P =.25). Increasing patient age trended toward a decreased clinical retear rate, independent of the repair technique (hazard ratio, 0.86; P =.056). There were no significant differences in the Tegner scores, IKDC scores, or range of motion between the groups as a whole or when subcategorizing by age, sex, body mass index, tear complexity, rim width, isolated versus concomitant ACLR, or medial- versus lateral-sided repair. There were no complications in the all-inside group, while there was a 10% rate of minor complications in the inside-out group (P =.49). Conclusion: Overall, satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable at short-term to midterm follow-up with both inside-out and all-inside repair techniques of bucket-handle meniscal tears in rigorously matched patients with similar meniscal tear patterns.

KW - arthroscopic surgery

KW - knee

KW - meniscal tear

KW - surgical repair

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055166070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055166070&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2325967118779045

DO - 10.1177/2325967118779045

M3 - Article

VL - 6

JO - Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 2325-9671

IS - 6

ER -