Meniscal Repair outcomes at greater than five years: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: A pilot economic decision analysis

Background: The operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures has been associated with lower rerupture rates and better function but also a risk of surgery-related complications compared with nonoperative treatment, which may provide improved outcomes with accelerated rehabilitation protocols. However, economic decision analyses integrating the updated costs of both treatment options are limited in the literature. Purpose: To compare the cost-effectiveness of operative and nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon tears. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: An economic decision model was built to assess the cost-utility ratio (CUR) of open primary repair versus nonoperative treatment for acute Achilles tendon ruptures, based on direct costs from the practices of sports medicine and foot and ankle surgeons at a single tertiary academic center, with published outcome probabilities and patient utility data. Multiway sensitivity analyses were performed to reflect the range of data. Results: Nonoperative treatment was more cost-effective in the average scenario (nonoperative CUR, US$520; operative CUR, US$1995), but crossover occurred during the sensitivity analysis (nonoperative CUR range, US$224-US$2079; operative CUR range, US$789-US$8380). Operative treatment cost an extra average marginal CUR of US$1475 compared with nonoperative treatment, assuming uneventful healing in both treatment arms. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated a decreased marginal CUR of operative treatment when the outcome utility was maximized, and rerupture rates were minimized compared with nonoperative treatment. Conclusion: Nonoperative treatment was more cost-effective in average scenarios. Crossover indicated that open primary repair would be favorable for maximized outcome utility, such as that for young athletes or heavy laborers. The treatment decision for acute Achilles tendon ruptures should be individualized. These pilot results provide inferences for further longitudinal analyses incorporating future clinical evidence

Outcome of all-inside second-generation meniscal repair: Minimum five-year follow-up

BACKGROUND: Meniscal repair and preservation are the goal, when possible, of the treatment of meniscal injury. Current research on second-generation all-inside repair systems has been limited to a maximum of three years of follow-up. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term clinical success (at more than five years) of meniscal repair performed with a second-generation all-inside repair device, both as an isolated procedure and with a concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent meniscal repair with use of the all-inside FAST-FIX Meniscal Repair System (Smith & Nephew Arthroscopy, Andover, Massachusetts) from December 1999 to January 2007. Eighty-three meniscal repairs (in eighty-one patients) were identified, and follow-up data were obtained for seventy-five (90%). Twenty-six (35%) of the meniscal repairs were performed as isolated procedures. Clinical failure was defined as repeat surgical intervention involving resection or revision repair. Clinical outcomes were also assessed with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and the Marx activity score. RESULTS: The minimum duration of follow-up was five years (average, seven years). Twelve patients (16%) had failure of the meniscal repair, at an average of forty-seven months (range, fifteen to ninety-five months). The data did not offer enough statistical evidence, at alpha = 0.05, to establish a difference in average patient age, patient sex, or number of sutures utilized between successful repairs and failures. There was no difference in the failure rate between isolated repairs (12%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.76% to 23.76%) and those performed with concurrent ACL reconstruction (18%; 95% CI: 7.47% to 29.13%), and the average time to failure was similar between these two groups (48.1 months versus 46.6 months, p = 0.939). Postoperative KOOS and IKDC outcome scores were also similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This report of mid-term follow-up results of primary second-generation all-inside meniscal repair demonstrates its effectiveness both as an isolated procedure and when it is performed with concurrent ACL reconstruction. After a minimum of five years of follow-up, 84% of the patients continued to demonstrate successful repair. Treatment success was further supported by favorable results on patient-based outcome measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence