Ji Hyun Ahn1, Chang Hee Kim2, Sung Hyun Lee2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: drsky71@duih.org. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare conventional inside-out (IO) repair and all-inside (AI) repair for the posterior third of the meniscus during meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT). METHODS: Among the 64 enrolled patients, 31 patients underwent MAT with conventional IO repair, and 33 patients underwent MAT with AI repair using the FasT-Fix instrument for the posterior third of the meniscus allograft. All of the patients were retrospectively evaluated through clinical assessment at the last follow-up (54.3 months in the IO group and 55.4 months in the AI group) and through magnetic resonance imaging assessment for meniscal extrusion at 1 year postoperatively. Thirty patients (15 in each group) were evaluated through second-look arthroscopy at 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean Lysholm score (91.3 in the IO group and 92.3 in the AI group; P = .358) or the mean Tegner activity scale (7.1 in each group; P = .885) between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in the mean meniscal extrusion (2.6 mm in the IO group and 2.8 mm in the AI group; P = .454), relative percentage of extrusion value (25.6% in the IO group and 24.7% in the AI group; P = .721), or meniscal healing on second-look arthroscopy (P = .796) between the 2 groups. The difference in operative time between the 2 groups was found to be statistically significant (169.9 minutes in the IO group and 123.3 minutes in the AI group; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative study on the different techniques for posterior repair of meniscus allograft suggested that AI posterior repair using FasT-Fix could be an alternative method to conventional IO repair as it gives a similar postoperative result and requires a shorter operative time.
PURPOSE: To compare conventional inside-out (IO) repair and all-inside (AI) repair for the posterior third of the meniscus during meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT). METHODS: Among the 64 enrolled patients, 31 patients underwent MAT with conventional IO repair, and 33 patients underwent MAT with AI repair using the FasT-Fix instrument for the posterior third of the meniscus allograft. All of the patients were retrospectively evaluated through clinical assessment at the last follow-up (54.3 months in the IO group and 55.4 months in the AI group) and through magnetic resonance imaging assessment for meniscal extrusion at 1 year postoperatively. Thirty patients (15 in each group) were evaluated through second-look arthroscopy at 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean Lysholm score (91.3 in the IO group and 92.3 in the AI group; P = .358) or the mean Tegner activity scale (7.1 in each group; P = .885) between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in the mean meniscal extrusion (2.6 mm in the IO group and 2.8 mm in the AI group; P = .454), relative percentage of extrusion value (25.6% in the IO group and 24.7% in the AI group; P = .721), or meniscal healing on second-look arthroscopy (P = .796) between the 2 groups. The difference in operative time between the 2 groups was found to be statistically significant (169.9 minutes in the IO group and 123.3 minutes in the AI group; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our comparative study on the different techniques for posterior repair of meniscus allograft suggested that AI posterior repair using FasT-Fix could be an alternative method to conventional IO repair as it gives a similar postoperative result and requires a shorter operative time.