Riccardo D'Ambrosi1,2, Amit Meena3, Akshya Raj4, Riccardo Giorgino5,6, Nicola Ursino5, Laura Mangiavini5,6, Jon Karlsson7. 1. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. riccardo.dambrosi@hotmail.it. 2. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, Milan, Italy. riccardo.dambrosi@hotmail.it. 3. Gelenkpunkt-Sports and Joint Surgery, Innsbruck, Austria. 4. Central Institute of Orthopaedics, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India. 5. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. 6. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes, complications, and rate of return to sports among patients with RAMP lesion of the medial meniscus encountered during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases using the terms "ACL" or "anterior cruciate ligament," and "RAMP lesion." The outcome measures extracted from the studies were the Short Form-12 (SF-12) in its mental and physical component (MCS and PCS), Lysholm score, Subjective IKDC, Marx Score, WOMAC Score, Tegner, Radiological changes, complications, failures and/or revision surgery, and rate of return to sports. RESULTS: The cohort of patients consisted of 1,243 participants with a mean age of 28.6 ± 2.6. The mean postoperative follow-up was 40.9 ± 6.3 months. A total of 1145 (92.1%) RAMP lesions were repaired with concomitant ACL reconstruction, while only 98 (7.9%) lesions were left untreated (or treated with abrasion only). The Lysholm score was used in 6 studies (in one only at final follow-up), with a significant improvement in all the studies (Lysholmpre 60.03 ± 6.12; Lysholmpost 89.9 ± 5.0). Eight studies out of nine reported Subjective IKDC score, and a significant improvement was noted in all cases (IKDCpre 56.2 ± 5.8. IKDCpost 84.9 ± 3.7). Of 18 (1.4%) complications reported, 15 (1.2%) were related to RAMP/ACL surgery, and of the remaining three (0.2%) two (0.2%) were hematomas and one (0.1%) a contralateral ACL lesion. Of the 106 (8.5%) revision surgeries required, 5 (0.4%) were in non-treated lesions [two (0.2%) ACL re-ruptures and three (0.2%) medial meniscus re-injury]. In treated patients, the revision occurred for the following reasons: 75 (6.0%) meniscectomy, 14 (1.1%) meniscal suture revisions, 11 (0.9%) ACL failures and one (0.1%) arthrolysis. CONCLUSIONS: It is not yet clear if, in all cases of ACL reconstruction in which a medial meniscal RAMP lesion is encountered, the lesion needs to undergo surgical repair. Accordingly, it is recommended that in the repair of all unstable medial meniscal RAMP lesions during an ACL reconstruction in cases associated with a stable RAMP lesion, the surgeon may decide on repair based on the patient profile. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes, complications, and rate of return to sports among patients with RAMP lesion of the medial meniscus encountered during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases using the terms "ACL" or "anterior cruciate ligament," and "RAMP lesion." The outcome measures extracted from the studies were the Short Form-12 (SF-12) in its mental and physical component (MCS and PCS), Lysholm score, Subjective IKDC, Marx Score, WOMAC Score, Tegner, Radiological changes, complications, failures and/or revision surgery, and rate of return to sports. RESULTS: The cohort of patients consisted of 1,243 participants with a mean age of 28.6 ± 2.6. The mean postoperative follow-up was 40.9 ± 6.3 months. A total of 1145 (92.1%) RAMP lesions were repaired with concomitant ACL reconstruction, while only 98 (7.9%) lesions were left untreated (or treated with abrasion only). The Lysholm score was used in 6 studies (in one only at final follow-up), with a significant improvement in all the studies (Lysholmpre 60.03 ± 6.12; Lysholmpost 89.9 ± 5.0). Eight studies out of nine reported Subjective IKDC score, and a significant improvement was noted in all cases (IKDCpre 56.2 ± 5.8. IKDCpost 84.9 ± 3.7). Of 18 (1.4%) complications reported, 15 (1.2%) were related to RAMP/ACL surgery, and of the remaining three (0.2%) two (0.2%) were hematomas and one (0.1%) a contralateral ACL lesion. Of the 106 (8.5%) revision surgeries required, 5 (0.4%) were in non-treated lesions [two (0.2%) ACL re-ruptures and three (0.2%) medial meniscus re-injury]. In treated patients, the revision occurred for the following reasons: 75 (6.0%) meniscectomy, 14 (1.1%) meniscal suture revisions, 11 (0.9%) ACL failures and one (0.1%) arthrolysis. CONCLUSIONS: It is not yet clear if, in all cases of ACL reconstruction in which a medial meniscal RAMP lesion is encountered, the lesion needs to undergo surgical repair. Accordingly, it is recommended that in the repair of all unstable medial meniscal RAMP lesions during an ACL reconstruction in cases associated with a stable RAMP lesion, the surgeon may decide on repair based on the patient profile. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.