All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Meniscal Repair With Concurrent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-regression Analysis. (March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Westermann, Robert W.; Duchman, Kyle R.; Amendola, Annunziato; Glass, Natalie; Wolf, Brian R.
• Is Part Of: American journal of sports medicine. Volume 45:Number 3(2017)
• Page Start: 719
• Page End: 724
• Publication Date: 2017-03
• Subjects: meniscal repair -- anterior cruciate ligament -- knee -- all-inside -- inside-out; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.102705
• DOI: 10.1177/0363546516642220
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0363-5465

Abstract

Background: Meniscal tears are frequently repaired during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose: To systematically evaluate differences in clinical failures between all-inside and inside-out meniscal repairs performed during ACLR. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was perfomed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The databases queried included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All English-language studies reporting failure rates after meniscal repair with either the all-inside or inside-out technique performed in conjunction with ACLR were identified between 1980 and 2015. Studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Reported outcomes, clinical meniscal repair failures, and complications were assessed. Studies were weighted according to the size of the clinical series and mean follow-up length. Inverse-variance–weighted mixed models were used to evaluate whether there was a significant difference in pooled reoperation rates between repair techniques. Results: In total, 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 studies reported outcomes after all-inside repair, and 10 studies reported outcomes after inside-out repair (2 studies reported both). A total of 1126 patients were included in the analysis. The mean (±SD) follow-up for all-inside repair was 58.64 ± 22.24 months versus 76.25 ± 31.69 months for inside-out repair ( P = .13). The clinical failure rate for all-inside meniscal repair performed concurrently with ACLR was 16% (121/744) compared with 10% (39/382) for inside-out repair, and this was found to be significant ( P = .016). Implant irritation and device migration were the most common complications reported for all-inside repair; complication rates did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: There may be fewer early clinical failures when the inside-out technique is utilized for meniscal repair at the time of concomitant ACLR. Additional long-term studies will be useful to determine the operative success of these repairs over time.