TY - JOUR
T1 - Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
T2 - 6-Year Follow-up Results From the MARS Cohort
AU - MARS Group
AU - Fox, Jake A.
AU - Huston, Laura J.
AU - Haas, Amanda K.
AU - Pennings, Jacquelyn S.
AU - Allen, Christina R.
AU - Cooper, Daniel E.
AU - DeBerardino, Thomas M.
AU - Dunn, Warren R.
AU - Lantz, Brett A.
AU - Spindler, Kurt P.
AU - Stuart, Michael J.
AU - Amendola, Annunziato
AU - Annunziata, Christopher C.
AU - Arciero, Robert A.
AU - Bach, Bernard R.
AU - Baker, Champ L.
AU - Bartolozzi, Arthur R.
AU - Baumgarten, Keith M.
AU - Berg, Jeffrey H.
AU - Bernas, Geoffrey A.
AU - Brockmeier, Stephen F.
AU - Brophy, Robert H.
AU - Bush-Joseph, Charles A.
AU - Brad Butler V, J.
AU - Carey, James L.
AU - Carpenter, James E.
AU - Cole, Brian J.
AU - Cooper, Jonathan M.
AU - Cox, Charles L.
AU - Creighton, R. Alexander
AU - David, Tal S.
AU - Flanigan, David C.
AU - Frederick, Robert W.
AU - Ganley, Theodore J.
AU - Gatt, Charles J.
AU - Gecha, Steven R.
AU - Giffin, James Robert
AU - Hame, Sharon L.
AU - Hannafin, Jo A.
AU - Harner, Christopher D.
AU - Harris, Norman Lindsay
AU - Hechtman, Keith S.
AU - Hershman, Elliott B.
AU - Hoellrich, Rudolf G.
AU - Johnson, David C.
AU - Johnson, Timothy S.
AU - Jones, Morgan H.
AU - Kaeding, Christopher C.
AU - Kamath, Ganesh V.
AU - Klootwyk, Thomas E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
PY - 2025/12
Y1 - 2025/12
N2 - Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented. Purpose: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair. Study Design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment. Results: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears (P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.
AB - Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented. Purpose: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair. Study Design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment. Results: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears (P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.
KW - anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
KW - meniscal repair
KW - outcomes
KW - revision
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105023545759
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105023545759#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1177/03635465251387333
DO - 10.1177/03635465251387333
M3 - Article
C2 - 41220248
AN - SCOPUS:105023545759
SN - 0363-5465
VL - 53
SP - 3435
EP - 3445
JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 14
ER -