Poster 247: Comparative Outcomes of Radial and Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tear Repair at Mean 10 Years: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Abstract

Objectives:

Radial tears of the meniscus are increasingly treated with repair instead of partial meniscectomy, with satisfactory short-term clinical outcomes. There remains a paucity of mid- and long-term outcomes data for this preservation technique. The purpose of this study was to 1) evaluate the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes and reoperation rate of radial meniscal repair versus bucket-handle meniscal repair and 2) evaluate the outcomes of both surgeries overtime. We hypothesized that radial repair would provide similar outcomes and reoperation rates to that of bucket-handle meniscal repair in this propensity-matched cohort.

Methods:

A previously identified cohort of radial meniscal tears without concurrent root injuries undergoing surgical repair at a single institution between 2011 and 2015 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria was patients undergoing repair of full-thickness radial tears. Exclusion criteria were patients who had 1) not consented for research follow-up, 2) <2 year of follow-up, 3) high-grade (Outerbridge grade 3 or 4) chondromalacia, 4) knee dislocations or combined anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament injuries, 5) repair of posterior meniscal root tears, and 6) repair of partial radial tears. Propensity matching was performed based on age at surgery, sex, laterality, body mass index (BMI), and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a comparison pool of 70 bucket-handle meniscal repairs (BHMR). Reoperation-free survival rates, Tegner Activity Score, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were analyzed.

Results:

Twenty-four patients (18 males, 6 females, age 22.8 ± 11.9 years, BMI 26.5 ± 5.8) with radial meniscal repair were included in this study. Eighteen of these patients were successfully propensity matched to 18 bucket-handle meniscal tears for an overall mean follow-up of 10.2 ± 1.7 years (range, 7.3-13.5) (Table 1). The 24 radial tear repairs demonstrated significant and durable postoperative improvements at mean 10.2 years across VAS at rest (3.0 ± 2.5 vs 0.5 ± 1.0, p < 0.001), VAS for pain at use (5.8 ± 2.9 vs 1.4 ± 1.9, p < 0.001) Tegner (2.6 ± 1.4 vs 6.8 ± 2.0, p < 0.001) and IKDC (39.8 ± 12.3 vs 84.1 ± 16.5, p < 0.001) (Table 1). Of patients not undergoing reoperation (19), 100% reported being “Satisfied” 4/19 (21%) or “Very Satisfied” 15/19 (79%). When the 18 radial tear repairs were compared to the 18 BHMT repairs, there was no significant difference across VAS for pain at rest (0.6 ± 1.2 vs 0.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.48), VAS for pain at use (1.6 ± 2.1 vs 1.1 ± 1.3, p = 0.48) Tegner (6.9 ± 2.2 vs 6.4 ± 2.1, p = 0.51) and IKDC (83.4 ± 17.4 vs 82.1 ± 14.1, p = 0.83) (Table 2).

Importantly, survival without reoperation rates were not statistically different between the 2 groups at 10-year follow-up (14/18 (78%) vs 16/18 (89%), p = 0.37) (Figure 1). There was no significant difference between clinical outcomes (Tegner and IKDC) at final follow-up in the radial repair group as compared to the 4-year mid-term outcomes (p = 0.58 and 0.19 respectively). For the BHMR group, Tegner scores were not significantly different (p = 0.60) compared with their 4-year timepoint; however, IKDC scores at the final timepoint were significantly lower 93.4 ± 3.4 vs 82.1 ± 14.1 (p = 0.01). Notably, both the radial repair and bucket-handle repairs groups reported final follow-up Tegner scores that were not significantly different from their preinjury Tegner scores (p = 0.70 for the radial group and p = 0.62 for the bucket-handle group).

Conclusions:

At mean 10-year follow-up, significant clinical improvements and high rates of satisfaction were observed for radial meniscal tear repair. When propensity matched, radial and BHMR demonstrated durable improvements in postoperative VAS for pain, IKDC, and Tegner scores, as well as similar, acceptable reoperation rates.

Table 2