Search

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing partial meniscectomy preoperatively identified with the “meniscal comma sign” with those undergoing meniscectomy with other tear patterns. Methods: Patients with meniscal “comma sign,” as indicated by a query of magnetic resonance imaging reports, were screened using the search terms “meniscotibial recess,” “meniscus perched over the medial tibial margin,” or other search terms by radiologists between January 2008 and November 2019. Patients were matched and chart review was done for demographics, revision surgery, and progression to total knee arthroplasty. Radiographs were used for osteoarthritis grading using the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) scoring system. Preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm, and Short Form 12-item Survey scores were collected. Results: A total of 406 patients met inclusion (comma sign = 197; control group = 209). The control group had an increased duration of symptoms at the initial visit (P = .001). More patients with the meniscal comma sign received corticosteroid knee injections before surgery (P = .011), and they also had greater mean KL scores (P = .001) as well as greater KL categorical scores (P = .002), indicating more advanced levels or arthritis. There were no differences in those receiving physical therapy (PT) before surgery (P = .966) or those receiving injections or PT after surgery (P = .631, P = .37, respectively). International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm, and Short Form 12-Item Survey Physical scores improved preoperatively to postoperatively in both groups (P < .05), and there was no difference between the case and control group (P > .05). No significant difference was found in revisions or progression to total knee arthroplasty between cohorts. (P = .676 and P = .424). Conclusions: Patients presenting with preoperative findings of meniscal comma sign fare similarly to those that do not. Patients with this meniscal injury tend to have more advanced grading of osteoarthritic changes in the knee at presentation and seek care earlier than those without. Arthroscopic meniscectomy is a good treatment option for patients with a meniscal fragment in the meniscotibial recess and shows outcomes comparable with those with other tear patterns. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort.

Purpose: To use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans to compare the prevalence of articular cartilage damage in patients with a single patellar dislocation versus those with multiple dislocations and to compare the locations and severity of chondral injury between the groups. Methods: Patients with patellar dislocation between January 2017 and July 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients with a documented history of patellar dislocation and an MRI scan of the affected knee were included. Patients with articular cartilage injury prior to the dislocation event were excluded. Articular cartilage injury was graded using a validated system: AMADEUS (Mean Total Area Measurement and Depth & Underlying Structures). Caton-Deschamps Index (CDI) scores and Dejour classifications of trochlear dysplasia were also collected. Data were calculated by performing t tests, Mann-Whitney tests, and χ2 or Fisher Exact tests to calculate P values for categorical data. Results: In total, 233 patients were included: 117 with primary dislocations and 116 with recurrent dislocations. Articular cartilage injuries were present in 51 patients with primary dislocations (43.6%) and 68 patients with recurrent dislocations (58.6%, P = .026). On comparison of the groups, the recurrent group contained a significantly larger proportion of female patients (65.5% vs 46.2%, P = .004). There was no difference in lesion size, subchondral bone defect, presence of bone edema, or total AMADEUS score between groups (P = .231). Caton-Deschamps Index scores were not significant when comparing between groups; however, the Dejour classifications showed higher grades in the recurrent group (P = .013 for A-D grading scale and P = .005 for high/low grading scale). Subgroup analysis revealed that when cartilage damage was present, patients from the primary group had significantly more full-thickness lesions (P < .001) and lower AMADEUS scores (P = .016). Conclusions: There was a similarly high prevalence of cartilage injury seen on MRI after both a primary patellar dislocation and a recurrent patellar dislocation. Chondral injury primarily affected the medial and lateral patellar facets and the lateral femoral condyle in both the primary and recurrent dislocation groups. However, the primary group showed an increased number of full-thickness lesions. There was no difference in lesion size, subchondral bone defect, presence of bone edema, or total AMADEUS score between the primary and recurrent groups. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic investigation.

Purpose: To evaluate patient outcomes and satisfaction after arthroscopic portal closure with absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures after knee arthroscopy. Methods: Patients undergoing primary knee arthroscopy were identified during procedure scheduling. Exclusion criteria included revision procedures, concomitant ligament reconstruction, or meniscal repair surgery. Before surgery, enrolled patients were randomly assigned to undergo closure with either 3-0 Monocryl absorbable or 3-0 nylon non-absorbable sutures. Postoperative evaluation at 2, 6, and 12 weeks included a Visual Analogue Cosmesis scale, a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, patient scar assessment, and customized questionnaire assessing scar satisfaction. Results: Between January 2019 and August 2022, 247 were included for analysis: 145 in the absorbable group and 129 in the non-absorbable group. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index, race, smoking status, or laterality of procedure. Patients in the nonabsorbable group reported higher overall satisfaction at week 6 follow-up (9.12 ± 1.85 vs 8.44 ± 2.49, P = .019) and week 12 follow-up (9.13 ± 1.76 vs 8.54 ± 2.50, P = .048). There was no difference in pain, swelling, itching, numbness, incisional pain, or burning at any time. Patients in the nonabsorbable group observed more skin discoloration at 2 weeks (3.00 ± 2.33 vs 2.41 ± 1.80, P = .026) and 6 weeks (3.74 ± 2.82 vs 2.98 ± 2.45, P = .032) follow-up with no significant difference at 12 weeks. Conclusion: In this study, patients were more satisfied with nonabsorbable sutures for portal wound closure after knee arthroscopy despite early reporting of increased skin discoloration relative to absorbable sutures. Level of Evidence: Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and biomechanical performance of transosseous tunnels compared with suture anchors for quadriceps tendon repair. Methods: In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search was performed in April 2021 in the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed (1980-2021), MEDLINE (1980-2021), Embase (1980-2021), and CINAHL (1980-2021). Level I-IV studies were included if they provided outcome data for surgical repair of the quadriceps tendon using transosseous tunnels or suture anchors with minimum 1-year follow-up. Biomechanical studies comparing transosseous tunnels and suture anchors were separately analyzed. Results: The systematic search yielded 1,837 citations, 23 of which met inclusion criteria (18 clinical, 5 biomechanical). In total, 13 studies reported results for transosseous repair and 7 studies reported results for repair with suture anchors. There were results for 508 patients from clinical studies. The average postoperative Lysholm score ranged from 88 to 92 for suture anchor repairs and 72.8 to 94 for transosseous repairs with range of motion ranging from 117° to 138° and 116° to 135°, respectively. Synthesis of the biomechanical data revealed the mean difference in load to failure was not significant between constructs (137.21; 95% confidence interval –10.14 to 284.57 N; P = .068). Conclusions: Transosseous and suture anchor techniques for quadriceps tendon repair result in similar biomechanical and postoperative outcomes. No difference between techniques in regard to ultimate load to failure among comparative biomechanical studies were observed. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review level III-IV studies.