Outcomes of Inside-out Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Multiligament Reconstruction in the Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists for meniscal repair outcomes in a multiligament reconstruction setting. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes and failure rates of meniscal repair in patients who underwent multiligament reconstruction compared with patients who underwent multiligament reconstruction but lacked meniscal tears. The authors hypothesized that the outcomes of meniscal repair associated with concomitant multiligament reconstruction would significantly improve from preoperatively to postoperatively at a minimum of 2 years after the index surgery. Secondarily, they hypothesized that this cohort would demonstrate similar outcomes and failure rates compared with the cohort that did not have meniscal lesions at the time of multiligament reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for the study included radiographically confirmed skeletally mature patients of at least 16 years of age who underwent multiligamentous reconstruction of the knee without previous ipsilateral osteotomy, intra-articular infections, or intra-articular fractures. Patients were included in the experimental group if they underwent inside-out meniscal suture repair with concurrent multiligament reconstruction. Those included in the control group (multiligament reconstruction without a meniscal tear) underwent multiligament reconstruction but did not undergo any type of meniscal surgery. Lysholm, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form-12 physical component summary and mental component summary, Tegner activity scale, and patient satisfaction scores were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. The failure of meniscal repair was defined as a retear of the meniscus that was confirmed arthroscopically. RESULTS: There were 43 patients (16 female, 27 male) in the meniscal repair group and 62 patients (25 female, 37 male) in the control group. Follow-up was obtained in 93% of patients with a mean of 3.0 years (range, 2.0-4.7 years). There was a significant improvement between all preoperative and postoperative outcome scores ( P < .05) for both groups. The meniscal repair group had significantly lower preoperative Lysholm and Tegner scores ( P = .009 and P = .02, respectively). There were no significant differences between any other outcome scores preoperatively. The failure rate of the meniscal repair group was 2.7%, consisting of 1 symptomatic meniscal retear. There was no significant difference in any postoperative outcome score at a minimum 2-year follow-up between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Good to excellent patient-reported outcomes were reported for both groups with no significant differences in outcomes between the cohorts. Additionally, the failure rate for inside-out meniscal repair with concomitant multiligament reconstruction was low, regardless of meniscus laterality and tear characteristics. The use of multiple vertical mattress sutures and the biological augmentation resulting from intra-articular cruciate ligament reconstruction tunnel reaming may be partially responsible for the stability of the meniscal repair construct and thereby contribute to the overall improved outcomes and the low failure rate of meniscal repair, despite lower preoperative Lysholm and Tegner scores in the meniscal repair group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".