Effect of Meniscocapsular and Meniscotibial Lesions in ACL-Deficient and ACL-Reconstructed Knees: A Biomechanical Study.

BACKGROUND: Ramp lesions were initially defined as a tear of the peripheral attachment of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus at the meniscocapsular junction. The separate biomechanical roles of the meniscocapsular and meniscotibial attachments of the posterior medial meniscus have not been fully delineated.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the biomechanical effects of meniscocapsular and meniscotibial lesions of the posterior medial meniscus in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient and ACL-reconstructed knees and the effect of repair of ramp lesions. STUDY
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Twelve matched pairs of human cadaveric knees were evaluated with a 6 degrees of freedom robotic system. All knees were subjected to an 88-N anterior tibial load, internal and external rotation torques of 5 N·m, and a simulated pivot-shift test of 10-N valgus force coupled with 5-N·m internal rotation. The paired knees were randomized to the cutting of either the meniscocapsular or the meniscotibial attachments after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Eight comparisons of interest were chosen before data analysis was conducted. Data from the intact state were compared with data from the subsequent states. The following states were tested: intact (n = 24), ACL deficient (n = 24), ACL deficient with a meniscocapsular lesion (n = 12), ACL deficient with a meniscotibial lesion (n = 12), ACL deficient with both meniscocapsular and meniscotibial lesions (n = 24), ACLR with both meniscocapsular and meniscotibial lesions (n = 16), and ACLR with repair of both meniscocapsular and meniscotibial lesions (n = 16). All states were compared with the previous states. For the repair and reconstruction states, only the specimens that underwent repair were compared with their intact and sectioned states, thus excluding the specimens that did not undergo repair.
RESULTS: Cutting the meniscocapsular and meniscotibial attachments of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus significantly increased anterior tibial translation in ACL-deficient knees at 30° ( P ≤ .020) and 90° ( P < .005). Cutting both the meniscocapsular and meniscotibial attachments increased tibial internal (all P > .004) and external (all P < .001) rotation at all flexion angles in ACL-reconstructed knees. Reconstruction of the ACL in the presence of meniscocapsular and meniscotibial tears restored anterior tibial translation ( P > .053) but did not restore internal rotation ( P < .002), external rotation ( P < .002), and the pivot shift ( P < .05). To restore the pivot shift, an ACLR and a concurrent repair of the meniscocapsular and meniscotibial lesions were both necessary. Repairing the meniscocapsular and meniscotibial lesions after ACLR did not restore internal rotation and external rotation at angles >30°.
CONCLUSION: Meniscocapsular and meniscotibial lesions of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus increased knee anterior tibial translation, internal and external rotation, and the pivot shift in ACL-deficient knees. The pivot shift was not restored with an isolated ACLR but was restored when performed concomitantly with a meniscocapsular and meniscotibial repair. However, the effect of this change was minimal; although statistical significance was found, the overall clinical significance remains unclear. The ramp lesion repair used in this study failed to restore internal rotation and external rotation at higher knee flexion angles. Further studies should examine improved meniscus repair techniques for root tears combined with ACLRs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Meniscal ramp lesions should be repaired at the time of ACLR to avoid continued knee instability (anterior tibial translation) and to eliminate the pivot-shift phenomenon.