2025 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster
Clinical And MRI Outcomes Following Meniscal Repair: A Comparison Between Tear Types
Elias Ammann, MD SWITZERLAND
Jay R. Ebert, PhD, Perth, WA AUSTRALIA
Luke Rao, MD, Perth, WA AUSTRALIA
Antony Liddell, FRACS(Orth), FAOrthA, Floreat, Western Australia AUSTRALIA
Usman Najeeb Bhatty, FRCS, MB ChB, BSc, Altrincham, Cheshire UNITED KINGDOM
Ross Radic, MBBS FRACS (Ortho) FAOrthA, West Perth, WA AUSTRALIA
Perth Orthopaedic and Sport Medicine Centre, Perth, WA, AUSTRALIA
FDA Status Cleared
Summary
Clinical outcomes are superior in patients undergoing repair for radial tears, whereas patients with root tears may need counseling for potential persistence of symptoms.
ePosters will be available shortly before Congress
Abstract
Introduction
To report the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing isolated meniscal repair and compare outcomes across different tear types.
Materials And Methods
A retrospective analysis was undertaken in all patients that underwent isolated meniscus repair by two orthopaedic surgeons. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected in 83 patients at =2 years post-surgery, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, the Lysholm and Tegner scores. Furthermore, 62 patients underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) at =1-year post-surgery, assessed with Henning’s criteria (healed, partially healed, not healed). PROMs were compared across tear types (bucket handle, horizontal, radial, vertical/longitudinal and root tears), while clinical and MRI-based outcome was compared between medial and lateral repairs. Clinical outcomes were compared based on MRI healing.
Results
Differences were seen for the IKDC (p=0.048), Lysholm (p=0.024) and Tegner (p<0.0001) scores when comparing different tear types, with patients undergoing repair for radial tears reporting significantly better (p<0.05) outcomes compared with all other tear types. Patients undergoing repair for root tears reported significantly lower (p<0.05) scores for all PROMs when compared with all other tear types. No difference (p=0.481) was observed between the medial and lateral compartments in the percentage of meniscal repairs that had healed (or partially healed) versus not healed. No difference in the reported IKDC (p=0.571, healed mean 86.3, partially healed mean 82.2, not healed mean 85.4), Lysholm (p=0.499, healed mean 90.5, partially healed mean 85.4, not healed mean 88.9) or Tegner (p=0.734, healed mean 6.0, partially healed mean 5.8, not healed mean 6.4) was seen based on repair integrity.
Conclusion
Favorable clinical outcomes can be expected with meniscus repairs for most tear types. Clinical outcomes are superior in patients undergoing repair for radial tears, whereas patients with root tears may need counseling for potential persistence of symptoms.