Effectiveness of Bioabsorbable Arrows Compared with Inside-Out Suturing for Vertical, Reparable Meniscal Lesions
- 1 June 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Vol. 35 (6) , 889-896
Abstract
Background: Techniques for repairing the meniscus include both open and arthroscopic techniques using sutures and bioabsorbable implants. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of inside-out suturing and bioabsorbable arrows for repair of vertical meniscal lesions. Study Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients were randomly assigned to arrows (n = 51) or sutures (n = 49). Sixty-five percent of patients (31 sutures, 34 arrows) underwent a concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A blinded research associate conducted assessments at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was retear rate. Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life Outcome Measure, and side-to-side comparisons of flexion and extension. Results: At baseline, groups were similar in age, gender, time from injury to surgery, and length and location of tear. Mean follow-up was 28.0 ± 8.4 months. There were 22 failed meniscal repairs (11 in each group), which did not represent a significant difference in the rate of failure between groups (P = .92). The mean quality of life scores and side-to-side differences in extension and flexion measurements were not significantly different between groups. Two patients from the arrow group crossed over into the suture group at the time of surgery because of technical difficulties with the device, and in 3 instances, a single suture was needed to keep the tear reduced while arrows were introduced. Two patients required reoperation for removal of a prominent, subcutaneous arrow, and 1 patient in the suture group suffered a transient peroneal nerve palsy during revision suturing. Conclusion: At intermediate follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in measured outcomes between meniscal suturing and arrows. Longer term follow-up is necessary to identify differences between these 2 treatments, particularly to estimate the incidence of articular surface damage in patients whose meniscal tear was repaired using arrows.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Chondral injury due to migration of a Mitek RapidLoc meniscal repair implant after successful meniscal repair: a case reportKnee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2004
- Measurement of meniscofemoral contact pressure after repair of bucket-handle tears with biodegradable implantsArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2004
- Tensile Fixation Strengths of Absorbable Meniscal Repair Devices as a Function of Hydrolysis TimeThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2001
- The arrow versus horizontal suture in arthroscopic meniscus repairKnee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 1999
- Intratester and intertester reliability and criterion validity of the parallelogram and universal goniometers for active knee flexion in healthy subjectsPhysiotherapy Research International, 1997
- Failure strengths of suture versus biodegradable arrow for meniscal repair: an in vitro studyArthroscopy, 1997
- Failure strength of a new meniscus arrow repair technique: Biomechanical comparison with horizontal sutureArthroscopy, 1997
- Open meniscus repairThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1989
- The Contact Area and Pressure Distribution Pattern of the Knee:A Study of Normal and Osteoarthrotic Knee JointsActa Orthopaedica, 1980
- The Degenerative Effects of Partial and Total Resection of the Medial Meniscus in Dogs?? KneesClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1975