Content uploaded by Chinmay Gupte
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chinmay Gupte on Sep 25, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Simon C Mordecai, Nawfal Al-Hadithy, Chinmay M Gupte,
Imperial College NHS Trust, St Mary’s and Charing Cross Hos-
pitals, London W21NY, United Kingdom
Howard E Ware, Chinmay M Gupte, The Wellington Hospital,
The Knee Surgery Unit, London NW8 9LE, United Kingdom
Author contributions: Mordecai SC and Al-Hadithy N wrote
the manuscript; Ware HE and Gupte CM provided specialist in-
put and edited the manuscript.
Correspondence to: Dr. Simon C Mordecai, Imperial College
NHS Trust, St Mary’s and Charing Cross Hospitals, Praed St,
London W21NY, United Kingdom. simon.mordecai@gmail.com
Telephone: +44-020-33130970 Fax: +44-020-33130971
Received: December 31, 2013 Revised: April 5, 2014
Accepted: May 16, 2014
Published online: July 18, 2014
Abstract
Treatment options for meniscal tears fall into three
broad categories; non-operative, meniscectomy or
meniscal repair. Selecting the most appropriate treat-
ment for a given patient involves both patient factors
(
e.g.
, age, co-morbidities and compliance) and tear
characteristics (
e.g.
, location of tear/age/reducibility of
tear). There is evidence suggesting that degenerative
tears in older patients without mechanical symptoms
can be effectively treated non-operatively with a struc-
tured physical therapy programme as a rst line. Even
if these patients later require meniscectomy they will
still achieve similar functional outcomes than if they
had initially been treated surgically. Partial meniscec-
tomy is suitable for symptomatic tears not amenable
to repair, and can still preserve meniscal function espe-
cially when the peripheral meniscal rim is intact. Menis-
cal repair shows 80% success at 2 years and is more
suitable in younger patients with reducible tears that
are peripheral (
e.g.
, nearer the capsular attachment)
and horizontal or longitudinal in nature. However, care-
ful patient selection and repair technique is required
with good compliance to post-operative rehabilitation,
which often consists of bracing and non-weight bear-
ing for 4-6 wk.
© 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Key words: Meniscus; Meniscectomy; Meniscal tear;
Meniscal repair; Arthroscopic surgery
Core tip: Meniscal tears are a common orthopaedic
pathology. Selecting the correct treatment can be chal-
lenging and involves multiple factors. This review ex-
plores the evidence for managing meniscal tears and
when to consider each treatment option based on cur-
rent available evidence.
Mordecai SC, Al-Hadithy N, Ware HE, Gupte CM. Treatment
of meniscal tears: An evidence based approach. World J Or-
thop 2014; 5(3): 233-241 Available from: URL: http://www.
wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v5/i3/233.htm DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.5312/wjo.v5.i3.233
INTRODUCTION
Meniscal tears are the most common pathology of the
knee with a mean annual incidence of 66 per 100000[1].
Historically it was believed that the menisci served no
functional purpose and they were often excised with
open total meniscectomy[2 ]. McMurray[3] described that
insufficient removal of the meniscus was the cause of
failure of meniscectomy. In 1948 Fairbank[4] reported
the clinical outcomes of 107 patients after total menis-
cectomiesand found that the majority had progressive
attening of the condyle, narrowing of the joint space
and ridge formation. This study significantly changed
our approach to dealing with meniscal tears. More re-
cent studies have shown that function of the knee was
directly related to the amount of meniscal tissue that
remained[5]. Increased knowledge of the long term con-
sequences and altered biomechanics in the knee post
meniscectomy has placed greater emphasis on meniscal
preserving techniques. This review explores the evidence
TOPIC HIGHLIGHT
Online Submissions: http://www.wjgnet.com/esps/
Help Desk: http://www.wjgnet.com/esps/helpdesk.aspx
doi:10.5312/wjo.v5.i3.233
233 July 18, 2014
|
Volume 5
|
Issue 3
|
WJO
|
www.wjgnet.com
World J Orthop 2014 July 18; 5(3): 233-241
ISSN 2218-5836 (online)
© 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Treatment of meniscal tears: An evidence based approach
Simon C Mordecai, Nawfal Al-Hadithy, Howard E Ware, Chinmay M Gupte
WJO 5th Anniversary Special Issues (5): Knee
for managing meniscal tears and when to consider each
treatment option based on current available evidence.
ANATOMICAL STRUCTURE
The menisci are wedge shaped fibrocartilagenous struc-
tures located between the femoral condyles and tibial pla-
teau. The medial meniscus is “U” shaped covering around
60% of the medial compartment whereas the lateral
meniscus is more “C” with a shorter distance between its
anterior and posterior horns covering 80% of the lateral
compartment[6]. Meniscal tissue consists mainly of water
and type
Ⅰ collagen bres[7]. These bres run circumfer-
entially from the anterior horn insertional ligament to the
posterior horn insertional ligament with predominance
in the outer third. The fibres help to absorb the energy
by converting axial loading forces across the joint into
hoop stresses within the tissue. There are also radial bres
which prevent longitudinal splitting of the circumferential
bres[8]. The structure of these bres are important clini-
cally when deciding which meniscal tears are stable or
which are unstable and warrant resection or repair.
The blood supply to the menisci is of high relevance
having important implications for the potential healing
of a meniscal repair. Supply is from the periphery via the
medial and lateral geniculate arteries. A cadaveric study
has demonstrated that only the peripheral 10%-25% of
the meniscus benets from a blood supply in the mature
skeleton[9]. Two distinct zones have been termed, the red-
red vascular zone in the periphery and the white-white
avascular zone centrally. They are separated by a red-white
region with attributes from each zone. Tears located in the
white zone are unlikely to generate a healing response.
CLASSIFICATION OF MENISCAL TEARS
Meniscal tears are often classied according to their ori-
entation. They can be vertical longitudinal, vertical radial,
horizontal, oblique or complex[10] (Figure 1). Longitudinal
tears are more common medially, whereas radial tears are
more frequently seen laterally[11].
Vertical longitudinal tears occur between the circum-
ferential collagen fibres. The biomechanics of the knee
is therefore not always disrupted and these tears may be
asymptomatic. Complete vertical tears can sometime twist
within the joint known as “bucket handle” tears. These
are unstable tears which cause mechanical symptoms or
true locking of the knee. Vertical radial tears disrupt the
circumferential collagen bres and affect the ability of the
meniscus to absorb tibiofemoral load[12]. These tears are
usually not amenable to repair. Partial meniscectomy does
not restore complete function and accelerated degenerative
changes are likely to occur[13]. Horizontal tears split the me-
niscus into an upper and lower part and can exist without
clinical symptoms[14]. They are usually mechanically stable
but may give rise to flap tears. Their frequency increases
with age and often accompanied by meniscal cysts[15].
Oblique tears give rise to aps which are mechanical unsta-
ble and associated with mechanical symptoms. This pattern
of tear requires resection to prevent propagation of the
tear as the ap gets caught within the joint during exion.
Complex or degenerative tears are where two or more tear
patterns exist. They are more common in the elderly and
have associated osteoarthritic changes in the knee.
NON-OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
Non-operative treatments for meniscal injuries have been
234 July 18, 2014
|
Volume 5
|
Issue 3
|
WJO
|
www.wjgnet.com
Mordecai SC
et al
. Management of meniscal tears
Oblique Complex/degenerative
Vertical longitudinal Vertical radial Horizontal
Figure 1 Meniscal tear patterns.
well documented, particularly for degenerative tears.
Exercise has been shown to improve knee function and
reduce joint pain[16,17]. Mangione et al[18] found that quad-
riceps strengthening with static cycling for twenty five
minutes three times a week for ten weeks improved knee
function by 35% in patients with osteoarthritis. Herrlin
et al[19] extended this theory to patients with degenera-
tive medial meniscal tears in a prospective randomised
study. Ninety middle aged patients with non-traumatic
MRI conrmed medial meniscal tears were split into two
treatment groups[1], arthroscopic partial meniscectomy
followed by supervised exercise or[2] supervised exercise
alone. The aims of the exercise were to improve muscle
strength, flexibility and proprioception for a period of
eight weeks. Multiple outcome scores were perfor med
at eight weeks and 6 mo. Signicant improvements in all
outcomes were found at follow-up. There were no sig-
nicant differences in improvement between the groups
suggesting that a combination of arthroscopic partial
meniscectomy and supervised exercise does not neces-
sarily lead to greater improvements than exercise alone
in this patient group. Authors recommend a trial of su-
pervised exercise alone as rst line treatment. A follow-
up study showed that the similarities between the groups
were maintained at five years[20]. However, one third of
the patients from the exercise group still had disabling
knee symptoms after exercise therapy but improved to
the same level as the rest of the patients after arthroscop-
ic surgery with partial meniscectomy. These results were
echoed by a multicentre randomised controlled study of
351 patients over 45 years of age with a meniscal tear and
evidence of osteoarthritis[21]. No significant differences
were found in the magnitude of improvement in func-
tional status and pain between the partial meniscectomy
and physical therapy aloneat twelve months follow up.
It should be noted though, that there was also crossover
from the physical therapy group to the surgery group
in 35% of patients. The factors for this crossover were
not dened and may have skewed the results. Functional
outcomes of the crossover patients after 12 mo however,
were similar to those patients who had surgery initially,
suggesting that non-operative treatment is a reasonable
rst line strategy.
Yim et a l[22] compared non-operative strengthening
exercises with meniscectomy for degenerative horizontal
tears of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. Satis-
factory clinical results were found in each group at 2 years
follow up with no signicant difference in terms of pain,
function and patient satisfaction. All clinical data was ob-
tained using questionnaires which can be very subjective.
Another study[23] following the effect of supervised exer-
cise therapy on 37 patients with degenerative tears of the
medial meniscus found improvement in functional knee
scores up to 6 mo, after which there was decline and pro-
gression of osteoarthritis. The decline was also related to
the patients’ BMI.
Previous studies have suggested that early degenera-
tive changes are more likely to occur after meniscectomy
then non-operative management[24,25]. However the
current evidence suggests that although non-operative
management can be benecial initially around a third of
patients will go on to have a meniscectomy to achieve
satisfactory pain relief and functional outcomes. Pro-
vided patients with degenerative tears have a robust and
supervised exercise programme they can initially be man-
aged conservatively. If symptoms persist they could then
go on to have a meniscectomy. There were no studies re-
porting on non-operative management of acute meniscal
tears in young patients.
MENISCECTOMY
It is now well known that the menisci serve an important
role in the knee. Their main functions include load bear-
ing, shock absorption and stabilisation. In addition they
may have roles in joint lubrication, nutrition of the ar-
ticular cartilage and proprioception[26].
Baratz et al[ 27] conducted a biomechanical cadaveric
study and found that following total medial meniscec-
tomy there is a decrease in intra-articular contact area
of approximately 75% and the peak contact pressure in-
creased by approximately 235%. Comparable results were
found in a study by Ahmed and Burke[28]. Pressure on the
meniscus increased by 85% during flexion and contact
pressure by 100%-200% following total meniscectomy.
Roos et al[29] report on a long term clinical study with fol-
low-up of 21 years of patients after total meniscectomy
compared to matched controls. They conrm that the in-
creased pressure seen in the biomechanical studies leads
to radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis with a relative
risk of 14. It has also been shown that the risk of devel-
oping osteoarthritis after lateral meniscectomy is greater
than the equivalent for the medial side[30,31]. This is due to
the convexity of lateral tibial plateau mirroring the con-
vexity of the distal femoral condyle. In the absence of a
meniscus there is greater tendency to point loading. The
medial tibial plateau is concave providing some degree
of congruity even without a meniscus[32]. Furthermore as
previously mentioned the lateral meniscus covers a great-
er percentage of the compartment and carries 70% of
the compartment load compared to 50% medially adding
to the risk of developing osteoarthritis[33]. Given the dras-
tic changes in the biomechanics of the knee after total
meniscectomy much interest has focused on the benets
of preserving as much meniscus as possible. Partial men-
iscectomy aims to remove only the torn piece of menis-
cus while retaining as much normal meniscus especially
in the peripheral rim which is mostly responsible for the
biomechanical function of the knee[34].
Northmore-Ball et al[35] compared arthroscopic partial
meniscectomy with open partial and total meniscectomy
in 219 knees. They reported that 90% of patients had ei-
ther good or excellent satisfaction following arthroscopic
partial meniscectomy compared to only 68% who had
open total meniscectomy after 4.3 years follow-up. Burks
et al[36] also found good or excellent results in 88% of
patients after partial meniscectomy and Jaureguito et al[37]
report 90% of patients report good or excellent results
235 July 18, 2014
|
Volume 5
|
Issue 3
|
WJO
|
www.wjgnet.com
Mordecai SC
et al
. Management of meniscal tears
236 July 18, 2014
|
Volume 5
|
Issue 3
|
WJO
|
www.wjgnet.com
fects millions of people worldwide and results from just
one single institution cannot be a true representation.
Secondly there is no clear indication of the severity of
the osteoarthritis in each case. Bernstein and Quach[43] in
a critique of this paper believe the inclusion criteria were
too broad and arthroscopy based these indications should
be invalidated.Finally the authors’ state that the billions
of dollars spent on arthroscopies annually might be put
to better use. If these patients were subjected to total
knee replacements instead this carries a ve times greater
cost than arthroscopy. Also as the knee replacements will
be done earlier they are more likely to need revision fur-
ther adding to the costs.
Katz et al[44] reviewed 105 patients following partial
medial meniscectomy with aim to establish multiple
predictors of functional outcome. They identified that
although partial meniscectomy generally had favourable
outcomes, extent of cartilage damage as well as workers’
compensation case pending and low preoperative physi-
cal function were predictors of poor outcome. Predictors
of good outcomes in arthroscopic partial meniscectomy
include age younger than 40 years, symptoms present less
than 1 year, absent patellar symptoms, no preoperative
radiographic evidence of degeneration and absence of
ligamentous injury[45].
Despite selecting patients with characteristics for
more favourable outcomes, long term studies have sug-
gested that they will eventually go on to have accelerated
degenerative changes. Table 1 summarises the factors
inuencing the risk of developing arthritis based on the
evidence previously discussed.
MENISCAL REPAIR
Owing to the long term complications associated with
meniscectomy, as well as the recognition of the function-
al importance of the meniscus, there has been increasing
interest in avoidance of meniscectomy where possible
and meniscal repair has gained popularity.
In the early 1980s animal studies were performed
to evaluate the response of the meniscus to injury, and
showed that meniscal tissue was capable generating a
healing response particularly at its periphery. Cabaud et
al[46] performed transverse medial meniscal lacerations
and repair with a single Dexon suture on 20 canine and
12 rhesus knee joints. At just four months, 94% showed
sufcient healing to protect the underlying articular car-
tilage. Only 6% failed to heal. Histology revealed that
the scar tissue was composed of unorganised collagen
without common ground substance components. Arnoc-
zky and Warren[47] reported on the vascular response to
complete midportion transaction of the medial meniscus
in 15 dogs. They found that at ten weeks all of the lacera-
tions healed with brovascular scar tissue. The response
originated from the peripheral synovial tissues. Interest-
ingly longitudinal incisions in the avascular portion of the
meniscus all failed to heal.
The blood supply is fundamental to the success of
with 85% resuming pre-injury level of activities at 2 years
after surgery.
Short term results following partial meniscectomy
are encouraging with around 90% showing satisfactory
clinical results. Several long term studies show that partial
meniscectomy may delay degeneration but not prevent
it. In a study[38] looking at 136 patients following partial
meniscectomy for isolated meniscal tears, at 8.5 years
follow-up there was a re-operation rate of 22.8% and
53% of patients had osteoarthritic radiographic changes
compared to only 22% in the unaffected control knee. A
longitudinal study[39] of 147 athletes following meniscec-
tomy for an isolated meniscal injuries were followed up
at 4.5 years and then again at 14 years. At the rst follow-
up around half were asymptomatic but this reduced to
around one third at final follow-up. Also the incidence
of radiographic changes rose from 40% to 89% between
follow-ups and 46% had given up or reduced their sport-
ing activity. Radiographic degeneration was more fre-
quently seen after lateral meniscectomy than medial.
Determining which patients will do well following
partial meniscectomy is a challenging task and multiple
factors need to be considered. Matsusue et al[40] conducted
a retrospective analysis of 65 patients over forty years of
age who had undergone partial medial meniscectomy. Pa-
tients were divided into two groups based on degree of
articular degeneration. In the group with no pre-existing
articular damage 87% had an excellent outcome, and only
one patient had a poor result. In contrast, patients from
the other group had signicantly worse results, with only
one knee having an excellent outcome, and four knees
having poor results. Authors concluded that arthroscopic
partial medial meniscectomy in patients older than 40
years is an acceptable and effective long-ter m treat-
ment, particularly in patients without signicant articular
cartilage damage. Arthroscopic resection of flap tears
from the posterior horn of the medial meniscus was also
shown to have less favourable outcomes in the presence
of chondromalacia in a review of 93 patients[41].
A randomised double blinded placebo controlled
study published in The New England Journal of Medi-
cine[ 42] looked at 180 patients who were randomly as-
signed to receive arthroscopic debridement, arthroscopic
lavage or placebo surgery. Patients in the placebo group
received skin incisions and simulated debridement. Pa-
tients were followed up multiple times over a 2 year
period. Authors concluded that in patients with osteoar-
thritis the outcomes after arthroscopic lavage or debride-
ment were no better than after a placebo procedure. Also
function did not improve in any group.Although this is
a very well designed study providing the highest level of
evidence practice should not be changed on the basis of
just one study as the authors suggest and certain limita-
tions should also be taken into account. Firstly there is
an element of selection bias. All patients were recruited
from the Houston Veterans Affairs Medical Centre of
which 97% were male. Even though response to surgery
is not known to differ between sexes, osteoarthritis af-
Mordecai SC
et al
. Management of meniscal tears
237 July 18, 2014
|
Volume 5
|
Issue 3
|
WJO
|
www.wjgnet.com
a meniscal repair. Only tears in the red-red or possibly
the red-white zone are expected to heal. The absence of
blood vessels in the remaining meniscus prevents wide-
spread use of meniscal repair and patients are subjected
to meniscectomy. Attempts have been made to encourage
bleeding in otherwise avascular zones. Exogenous brin
clots have been used to stimulate a reparative response in
an avascular zone[48]. Five cases of posterolateral meniscal
tears just anterior to the popliteus fossa that are devoid
of penetrating blood vessels were repaired and enhanced
with a brin clot. All patients returned to initial level of
sports and second look arthroscopy showed healing of
the periphery occurred in all cases. Trephination of vas-
cular channels on the free meniscal edges has also been
shown to improve healing rates. In a study[49] comparing
meniscal repair plus trephination with meniscal repair
alone, there was a significantly lower re-tear rate in the
group who had additional trephination. Further evidence
that bleeding can aid meniscal repair is from a study by
Cannon and Vittori[50]. Patients with meniscal repairs in
conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruc-
tion were compared with patient undergoing meniscal
repair alone. They report a 93% healing rate in the ante-
rior cruciate ligament reconstruction group compared to
50% in meniscal repair alone. Anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction involves tibial and femoral drilling, this
delivers local growth and clotting factors which may ac-
count for the higher repair success rate. It was also noted
that acute repairs within 8 wk of injury did better than
the more chronic repairs.
Johnson et al[51] reviewed a consecutive series of 48
patients who had arthroscopically assisted repair of me-
dial meniscal tears. Exclusion criteria was any other knee
pathology or a tear less than 10mm. Clinical success was
based on history of pain, physical examination and bilat-
eral standing radiographs. The average follow-up period
was just over 10 years. Authors found a clinical success
rate of 76%. Furthermore radiographic examination
revealed only 8% of operated knees had minimal joint
changes compared to 3% in the contralateral knee. As
patients were contacted on average 10 years following the
procedure almost 30% were lost to follow-up. Another
study[52] with long term follow-up over 10 years also re-
port encouraging results. Thirty-three consecutive open
meniscal repairs were evaluated. No patients were lost
to follow-up. None of the 12 menisci in the stable knees
sustained re-tears, compared with 7 of 21 (33%) menisci
in nearly stable or unstable knees. Authors concluded a
long term survival for 79% with radiographic evidence
for the biomechanical function of successful meniscal re-
pairs. A review[53] of sixty two meniscal repairs has shown
that early repair within 3 mo of injury had better results
than late repair (91% vs 58% success rate) and traumatic
tears fared better than chronic tears (73% vs 42%). Au-
thors concluded that isolated atraumatic medial meniscal
tears appeared to do particularly poorly and may be bet-
ter treated by meniscectomy.
Seo et al[54] performed second look arthroscopies in
11 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of the
posterior root attachment at 13.4 mo postoperatively and
in none of them had the repair healed. A study[55] evalu-
ating healing after meniscal repair using artho-CT scan
also found that posterior segment healing rate was lower
compared to middle portion tears. Despite this most pa-
tients still showed clinical improvement suggesting that
the favourable results seen after meniscal repair do not
necessarily correlate with the appearance of a normal
looking meniscus.
Studies comparing meniscal repair with meniscectomy
are limited. Dening whether or not a meniscal tear has
healed post-operatively is difficult. MRI scans are only
80%-90% accurate at diagnosing meniscal tears initially
and even less accurate post-operatively. High signal in the
meniscal tissue can represent oedema, degeneration, an
actual tear or a healing tear post repair[56]. Second-look
arthroscopy to directly visualise the repair, requires an
invasive surgical procedure and would be hard to justify.
Furthermore randomising patients to receive either repair
or resection would not be ethical as different tear pat-
terns require different interventions. Stein et al[57]report
on the long term outcome after arthroscopic meniscal
repair versus arthroscopic partial repair meniscectomy
for traumatic meniscal tears. Eight-one patients were as-
signed to either repair or resection. Meniscal repair was
performed in full thickness and vertical longitudinal tears
greater than 1cm or bucket handle tears in the red-red to
red-white zone. Partial meniscectomy was for ruptures
in the white-white zone, or for all tears considered non-
Mordecai SC
et al
. Management of meniscal tears
Table 1 Factors inuencing the risk of developing arthritis following meniscectomy
Compartment involved Greater risk with lateral meniscectomy
Volume of resection Greater risk with larger resection volume
Orientation of tear Greater risk with radial tear – destroys hoops tress function
Associated conditions Greater risk with pre-existing chondral damage
Greater risk with ACL insufciency
Knee alignment Varus malalignment → greater medial compartment load
Valgus malalignment → great lateral compartment load
Body habitus Greater risk for larger BMI
Patient age Greater risk over 40-year-old
Activity level Greater risk with lower preoperative activity level
BMI: Body mass index.
238 July 18, 2014
|
Volume 5
|
Issue 3
|
WJO
|
www.wjgnet.com
repairable due to type and size. Full rehabilitation was
performed for all repairs. This included six weeks of
protected weight bearing in motion limiting braces. At
long term follow-up (8.8 years) no osteoarthritic progres-
sion was detectable in 80.8% after repair compared with
40.0% after meniscectomy. Pre-injury level of activity was
achieved in 96.2% after repair compared with 50% after
meniscectomy. Function score revealed no significant
difference. An important point to note from this study
is that all patients benefited from surgery. One cannot
deduce that repair is better than resection as treatment
was not randomised but specifically chosen depending
on the type of tear. Also potential benets of meniscal
repair must be weighed up against signicant differences
in post-operative rehabilitation. Patients having simple
meniscectomy can usually return to full work after a
couple of weeks. However for a successful result follow-
ing meniscal repair, patients are required to wear a hinged
brace for up to 6 wk followed by extensive physiotherapy.
Such restriction should be taken into account and evalu-
ated on a patient by patient basis.
MENISCAL REPAIR TECHNIQUES
With the growing trend towards meniscal repair, naturally
there have also been advances in repair techniques par-
ticularly since the introduction of arthroscopic surgery.
Open meniscal repair through an incision posterior to
the collateral ligaments is now rarely performed due to
associated neurovascular injury. Rockbom and Gillquist[58]
report on a 13 year follow-up of 31 patients who under-
went open meniscal repair. They found an overall failure
rate of 29%. Interestingly,although knee function was
reduced in the repair group compared to an uninjured
control group; there was no difference in incidence of
radiological changes between groups. Other more com-
monly used techniques include inside-out, outside-in and
all inside repairs.
Both inside-out and outside-in repair techniques
involve passing a suture from either the inside or the
outside of the knee via arthroscopy and tied beyond the
joint capsule using a small incision. These techniques
are particularly useful for anterior and middle third tears
which are not easily accessed by an all-inside technique.
However care of neurovascular structures in particular
the saphenous nerve medially and the common peroneal
nerve laterally must be taken when making the accessory
incisions[59].
Advances in meniscal repair devices have allowed
for all-inside arthroscopic meniscal repair techniques to
evolve with the advantage of avoiding the need for acces-
sory incisions. Initially rigid biodegradable devices were
used. Gill et al[60] report on 32 meniscal repairs using the
rigid biodegradable Meniscus Arrow (Bionx Implants,
Blue Bell, PA). At 2.3 years follow-up they show a 90.6%
success rate with only 3 patients requiring further surgery.
However in a follow-up study[61] at 6.6 years, this success
had declined to just 71.4%. A biomechanical study[62] of
rigid biodegradable devices found that at 24 wk hydro-
lysis was responsible for a signicant decrease in failure
strength.
Suture based devices consisting of an anchor com-
ponent and a sliding knot were the next generation to
be developed in an attempt to avoid the complications
associated with rigid devices and to allow and more ex-
ible fixation of the meniscal fragments. Success rates
Mordecai SC
et al
. Management of meniscal tears
Physiotherapy and review in 3 mo
White-white zone Red-red zone
Meniscectomy Reducible?
Severe degenerative knee?
Symptomatic?
Meniscal tear
Displaced?Consider arthroscopy
Patient < 40 yr?
Red-white zone
Reducible?
Repair
Patient < 60 yr and no co-morbidities?
Repair
Physiotherapy/TKR
Figure 2 Meniscal tear management tree.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
No
No No
No
No
No
No
239 July 18, 2014
|
Volume 5
|
Issue 3
|
WJO
|
www.wjgnet.com
of 83%-88%[63,64] have been reported so far. Barber and
Herbert[65] investigated load-to-failure strength of menis-
cal repair devices and found that suture based devices
had superior pullout strength than rigid devices, with a
double vertical suture being the strongest. Drawbacks
associated with suture based devices include, increased
costs, retained polymer fragments, chondral injury and a
signicant learning curve with a high rate of anchor pull-
out during insertion[66].
Several studies have been published in order to es-
tablish the optimum repair technique. Grant et al[67] per-
formed a systematic review comparing 19 studies looking
at different repair techniques for isolated meniscal tears.
They found no differences in clinical failure rate or sub-
jective outcome between inside-out and all-inside menis-
cus repair techniques. Complications were associated with
both techniques. More nerve symptoms are associated
with the inside-out repair and more implant-related com-
plications are associated with the all-inside techniques.
Nepple et al[68] found similar results in a systematic review
of 13 studies with a minimum of ve year follow-up. A
pooled rate of failure from 20.2% to 24.3% was found
for all repair techniques. It was noted that modern all-
inside repair devices were not included in the review and
long term results are still awaited before rm conclusion
on the best repair technique and device can be made.
CONCLUSION
Meniscal tears are a common orthopaedic pathology.
Selecting the correct treatment can be challenging and
involves multiple factors. Knowledge and understanding
of the anatomical structure and vascularity of the menis-
cus as well as the pattern of tear is important. Evidence
shows that non-operative treatment can be successful
especially in the short term and in the presence of os-
teoarthritis. Partial meniscectomy can preserve some of
the function of the meniscus and is benecial for tears
within the avascular white-white zone. Meniscal repair
has grown in popularity and boasts excellent long-term
results. This should be considered for all repairable tears
provided the patient can comply with the post-operative
rehabilitation. Figure 2 summarises the evidence dis-
cussed in this review as well as contributions from the
senior author in a decision tree for dealing with meniscal
tears.
REFERENCES
1 Hede A, Jensen DB, Blyme P, Sonne-Holm S. Epidemiol-
ogy of meniscal lesions in the knee. 1,215 open operations
in Copenhagen 1982-84. Acta Orthop Scand 1990; 61: 435-437
[PMID: 2239168 DOI: 10.3109/17453679008993557]
2 McDermott ID, Amis AA. The consequences of meniscecto-
my. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88: 1549-1556 [PMID: 17159163
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B12.18140]
3 McMurray TP. The semilunar cartilages. Br J Surg 1942; 29:
407-414 [DOI: 10.1002/bjs.18002911612]
4 FAIRBANK TJ. Knee joint changes after meniscectomy. J
Bone Joint Surg Br 1948; 30B: 664-670 [PMID: 18894618]
5 Hede A, Larsen E, Sandberg H. The long term outcome of
open total and partial meniscectomy related to the quan-
tity and site of the meniscus removed. Int Orthop 1992; 16:
122-125 [PMID: 1428307 DOI: 10.1007/BF00180200]
6 Kohn D, Moreno B. Meniscus insertion anatomy as a basis
for meniscus replacement: a morphological cadaveric study.
Arthroscopy 1995; 11: 96-103 [DOI: 10.1016/0749-8063(95)900
95-0]
7 Herwig J, Egner E, Buddecke E. Chemical changes of hu-
man knee joint menisci in various stages of degeneration.
Ann Rheum Dis 1984; 4 3: 635-640 [PMID: 6548109 DOI:
10.1136/ard.43.4.635]
8 Bullough PG, Munuera L, Murphy J, Weinstein AM. The
strength of the menisci of the knee as it relates to their ne
structure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1970; 5 2: 564-567 [PMID:
5468789]
9 Arnoczky SP, Warren RF. Microvasculature of the human
meniscus. Am J Sports Med 1982; 10: 90-95 [PMID: 7081532
DOI: 10.1177/036354658201000205]
10 Bineld PM, Maffulli N, King JB. Patterns of meniscal tears
associated with anterior cruciate ligament lesions in ath-
letes. Injury 1993; 24: 557-561 [DOI: 10.1016/0020-1383(93)90
038-8]
11 Klimkiewicz JJ, Shaffer B. Meniscal surgery 2002 update:
indications and techniques for resection, repair, regenera-
tion, and replacement. Arthroscopy 2002; 18: 14-25 [PMID:
12426527 DOI: 10.1053/jars.2002.36505]
12 Maffulli N, Longo UG, Campi S, Denaro V. Meniscal tears.
Open Access J Sports Med 2010; 1: 45-54 [PMID: 24198542]
13 Magee T, Shapiro M, Williams D. Comparison of high-eld-
strength versus low-eld-strength MRI of the shoulder. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 1211-1215 [PMID: 14573405 DOI:
10.2214/ajr.181.5.1811211]
14 Noble J. Lesions of the menisci. Autopsy incidence in adults
less than fty-ve years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977; 59:
480-483 [PMID: 577209]
15 Muddu BN, Barrie JL, Morris MA. Aspiration and injec-
tion for meniscal cysts. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992; 74: 627-628
[PMID: 1624532]
16 Börjesson M, Robertson E, Weidenhielm L, Mattsson E,
Olsson E. Physiotherapy in knee osteoarthrosis: effect on
pain and walking. Physiother Res Int 1996; 1: 89-97 [PMID:
9238726 DOI: 10.1002/pri.6120010205]
17 Matthews P, St-Pierre DM. Recovery of muscle strength
following arthroscopic meniscectomy. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther 1996; 23: 18-26 [PMID: 8749746 DOI: 10.2519/
jospt.1996.23.1.18]
18 Mangione KK, McCully K, Gloviak A, Lefebvre I, Hofmann
M, Craik R. The effects of high-intensity and low-intensity
cycle ergometry in older adults with knee osteoarthritis.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1999; 54: M184-M190 [PMID:
10219009 DOI: 10.1093/gerona/54.4.M184]
19 Herrlin S, Hållander M, Wange P, Weidenhielm L, Werner
S. Arthroscopic or conservative treatment of degenerative
medial meniscal tears: a prospective randomised trial. Knee
Surg Sports Traumato l Arthrosc 2007; 15: 393-401 [PMID:
17216272 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-006-0243-2]
20 Herrlin SV, Wange PO, Lapidus G, Hållander M, Werner S,
Weidenhielm L. Is arthroscopic surgery benecial in treating
non-traumatic, degenerative medial meniscal tears? A ve
year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21:
358-364 [PMID: 22437659 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-012-1960-3]
21 Katz JN, Brophy RH, Chaisson CE, de Chaves L, Cole BJ,
Dahm DL, Donnell-Fink LA, Guermazi A, Haas AK, Jones
MH, Levy BA, Mandl LA, Martin SD, Marx RG, Miniaci A,
Matava MJ, Palmisano J, Reinke EK, Richardson BE, Rome
BN, Safran-Norton CE, Skoniecki DJ, Solomon DH, Smith
MV, Spindler KP, Stuart MJ, Wright J, Wright RW, Losina
E. Surgery versus physical therapy for a meniscal tear and
osteoarthritis. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 1675-1684 [PMID:
Mordecai SC
et al
. Management of meniscal tears
240 July 18, 2014
|
Volume 5
|
Issue 3
|
WJO
|
www.wjgnet.com
23506518 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301408]
22 Yim JH, Seon JK, Song EK, Choi JI, Kim MC, Lee KB, Seo
HY. A comparative study of meniscectomy and nonopera-
tive treatment for degenerative horizontal tears of the me-
dial meniscus. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41: 1565-1570 [PMID:
23703915 DOI: 10.1177/0363546513488518]
23 Neogi DS, Kumar A, Rijal L, Yadav CS, Jaiman A, Nag HL.
Role of nonoperative treatment in managing degenerative
tears of the medial meniscus posterior root. J OrthopTrau-
matol 2013; 14: 193-199 [PMID: 23532300 DOI: 10.1007/
s10195-013-0234-2]
24 Lohmander LS, Roos H. Knee ligament injury, surgery and
osteoarthrosis. Truth or consequences? Acta Orthop Scand
1994; 65: 605-609 [PMID: 7839844 DOI: 10.3109/17453679408
994613]
25 Roos H, Adalberth T, Dahlberg L, Lohmander LS. Osteo-
arthritis of the knee after injury to the anterior cruciate
ligament or meniscus: the influence of time and age. Os-
teoarthritis Cartilage 1995; 3: 261-267 [PMID: 8689461 DOI:
10.1016/S1063-4584(05)80017-2]
26 Krause WR, Pope MH, Johnson RJ, Wilder DG. Mechanical
changes in the knee after meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg
Am 1976; 58: 599-604 [PMID: 946970]
27 Baratz ME, Fu FH, Mengato R. Meniscal tears: the effect of
meniscectomy and of repair on intraarticular contact areas
and stress in the human knee. A preliminary report. Am J
Sports Med 1986; 14: 270-275 [PMID: 3755296 DOI: 10.1177/0
36354658601400405]
28 Ahmed AM, Burke DL. In-vitro measurement of static pres-
sure distribution in synovial joints--Part I: Tibial surface of
the knee. J Biomech Eng 1983; 105: 216-225 [PMID: 6688842
DOI: 10.1115/1.3138409]
29 Roos H, Laurén M, Adalberth T, Roos EM, Jonsson K,
Lohmander LS. Knee osteoarthritis after meniscectomy:
prevalence of radiographic changes after twenty-one years,
compared with matched controls. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41:
687-693 [PMID: 9550478]
30 Bonneux I, Vandekerckhove B. Arthroscopic partial lateral
meniscectomy long-term results in athletes. Acta Orthop Belg
2002; 68: 356-361 [PMID: 12415937]
31 Chatain F, Adeleine P, Chambat P, Neyret P. A comparative
study of medial versus lateral arthroscopic partial menis-
cectomy on stable knees: 10-year minimum follow-up. Ar-
throscopy 2003; 19: 842-849 [PMID: 14551546 DOI: 10.1016/
S0749-8063(03)00735-7]
32 McDermott ID. Meniscal tears. Curr Orthop 2006; 20: 85-94
[DOI: 10.1016/j.cuor.2006.02.010]
33 Seedhom BB, Dowson D, Wright V. Proceedings: Functions
of the menisci. A preliminary study. Ann Rheum Dis 1974;
33: 111 [PMID: 4821376 DOI: 10.1136/ard.33.1.111]
34 Jeong HJ, Lee SH, Ko CS. Meniscectomy. Knee Surg Relat
Res 2012; 24 : 129-136 [PMID: 22977789 DOI: 10.5792/
ksrr.2012.24.3.129]
35 Northmore-Ball MD, Dandy DJ, Jackson RW. Arthroscopic,
open partial, and total meniscectomy. A comparative study.
J Bone Joint Surg Br 1983; 65: 400-404 [PMID: 6874710]
36 Burks RT, Metcalf MH, Metcalf RW. Fifteen-year follow-up
of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Arthroscopy 1997; 13:
673-679 [PMID: 9442319 DOI: 10.1016/S0749-8063(97)90000-1]
37 Jaureguito JW, Elliot JS, Lietner T, Dixon LB, Reider B. The
effects of arthroscopic partial lateral meniscectomy in an
otherwise normal knee: a retrospective review of functional,
clinical, and radiographic results. Arthroscopy 1995; 11: 29-36
[PMID: 7727009 DOI: 10.1016/0749-8063(95)90085-3]
38 Faunø P, Nielsen AB.. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy:
a long-term follow-up. Arthroscopy 1992; 8: 345-349 [PMID:
1418207 DOI: 10.1016/0749-8063(92)90066-K]
39 Jørgensen U, Sonne-Holm S, Lauridsen F, Rosenklint A.
Long-term follow-up of meniscectomy in athletes. A pro-
spective longitudinal study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1987; 69:
80-83 [PMID: 3818740]
40 Matsusue Y, Thomson NL. Arthroscopic partial medial
meniscectomy in patients over 40 years old: a 5- to 11-year
follow-up study. Arthroscopy 1996; 12: 39-44 [PMID: 8838727
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-8063(96)90217-0]
41 Aune AK, Madsen JE, Moen H. Clinical signicance of con-
dylar chondromalacia after arthroscopic resection of flap-
tears of the medial meniscus. A prospective study of 93
cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1995; 114: 199-201 [PMID:
7662473 DOI: 10.1007/BF00444262]
42 Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, Menke TJ, Brody BA,
Kuykendall DH, Hollingsworth JC, Ashton CM, Wray NP.
A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis
of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 81-88 [PMID: 12110735
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa013259]
43 Bernstein J, Quach T. A perspective on the study of Mose-
ley et al: questioning the value of arthroscopic knee surgery
for osteoarthritis. Cleve Clin J Med 2003; 70: 401, 405-406,
405-406 [PMID: 12779130 DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.70.5.401]
44 Katz JN, Harris TM, Larson MG, Krushell RJ, Brown CH,
Fossel AH, Liang MH. Predictors of functional outcomes af-
ter arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. J Rheumatol 1992; 19:
1938-1942 [PMID: 1294743]
45 Bernstein J, Bartolozzi AR. Management of meniscal tears. J
Clin Outcomes Manage 2000; 7: 30-34
46 Cabaud HE, Rodkey WG, Fitzwater JE. Medical meniscus
repairs. An experimental and morphologic study. Am J
Sports Med 1981; 9: 129-134 [PMID: 6894516 DOI: 10.1177/03
6354658100900301]
47 Arnoczky SP, Warren RF. The microvasculature of the me-
niscus and its response to injury. An experimental study in
the dog. Am J Sports Med 1983; 11: 131-141 [PMID: 6688156
DOI: 10.1177/036354658301100305]
48 vanTrommel MF, Simonian PT, Potter HG, Wickiewicz TL.
Arthroscopic meniscal repair with fibrin clot of complete
radial tears of the lateral meniscus in the avascular zone.
Arthroscopy 1998; 14: 360-365 [PMID: 9620646 DOI: 10.1016/
S0749-8063(98)70002-7]
49 Zhang Z, Arnold JA. Trephination and suturing of avascu-
lar meniscal tears: a clinical study of the trephination pro-
cedure. Arthroscopy 1996; 12: 726-731 [PMID: 9115563 DOI:
10.1016/S0749-8063(96)90178-4]
50 Cannon WD, Vittori JM. The incidence of healing in ar-
throscopic meniscal repairs in anterior cruciate ligament-
reconstructed knees versus stable knees. Am J Sports Med
1992; 20: 176-181 [PMID: 1558246 DOI: 10.1177/03635465920
2000214]
51 Johnson MJ, Lucas GL, Dusek JK, Henning CE. Isolated
arthroscopic meniscal repair: a long-term outcome study
(more than 10 years). Am J Sports Med 1992; 27: 44-49 [PMID:
9934417]
52 DeHaven KE, Lohrer WA, Lovelock JE. Long-term results
of open meniscal repair. Am J Sports Med 1995; 23: 524-530
[PMID: 8526265 DOI: 10.1177/036354659502300502]
53 Venkatachalam S, Godsiff SP, Harding ML. Review of the
clinical results of arthroscopic meniscal repair. Knee 2001; 8:
129-133 [PMID: 11337239 DOI: 10.1016/S0968-0160(01)00061-8]
54 Seo HS, Lee SC, Jung KA. Second-look arthroscopic nd-
ings after repairs of posterior root tears of the medial menis-
cus. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39: 99-107 [PMID: 21051426 DOI:
10.1177/0363546510382225]
55 Pujol N, Panarella L, Selmi TA, Neyret P, Fithian D, Beauls
P. Meniscal healing after meniscal repair: a CT arthrogra-
phy assessment. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36: 1489-1495 [PMID:
18483200 DOI: 10.1177/0363546508316771]
56 Getgood A, Robertson A. Meniscal tears, repairs and re-
placement – a current concepts review. Orthop Truama 2010;
24: 121-128
57 Stein T, Mehling AP, Welsch F, von Eisenhart-Rothe R,
Jäger A. Long-term outcome after arthroscopic meniscal re-
Mordecai SC
et al
. Management of meniscal tears
241 July 18, 2014
|
Volume 5
|
Issue 3
|
WJO
|
www.wjgnet.com
pair versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for traumatic
meniscal tears. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38: 1542-1548 [PMID:
20551284 DOI: 10.1177/0363546510364052]
58 Rockborn P, Gillquist J. Results of open meniscus repair.
Long-term follow-up study with a matched uninjured
control group. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82: 494-498 [PMID:
10855869 DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.82B4.9942]
59 Barber FA, McGarry JE. Meniscal repair techniques. Sports
Med Arthrosc 2007; 15 : 199-207 [PMID: 18004219 DOI:
10.1097/JSA.0b013e3181595bed]
60 Gill SS, Diduch DR. Outcomes after meniscal repair using
the meniscus arrow in knees undergoing concurrent ante-
rior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2002; 18:
569-577 [PMID: 12098116 DOI: 10.1053/jars.2002.29897]
61 Lee GP, Diduch DR. Deteriorating outcomes after meniscal
repair using the Meniscus Arrow in knees undergoing con-
current anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: increased
failure rate with long-term follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2005;
33: 1138-1141 [PMID: 16000655 DOI: 10.1177/0363546505275
348]
62 Arnoczky SP, Lavagnino M. Tensile fixation strengths of
absorbable meniscal repair devices as a function of hydro-
lysis time. An in vitro experimental study. Am J Sports Med
2001; 29: 118-123 [PMID: 11292034]
63 Kotsovolos ES, Hantes ME, Mastrokalos DS, Lorbach O,
Paessler HH. Results of all-inside meniscal repair with the
FasT-Fix meniscal repair system. Arthroscopy 2006; 22: 3-9
[PMID: 16399454 DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.10.017]
64 Barber FA, Schroeder FA, Oro FB, Beavis RC. FasT-Fix menis-
cal repair: mid-term results. Arthroscopy 2008; 24: 1342-1348
[PMID: 19038704 DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.08.001]
65 Barber FA, Herbert MA. Meniscal repair devices. Arthros-
copy 2000; 16 : 613-618 [PMID: 10976122 DOI: 10.1053/
jars.2000.4819]
66 Miller MD, Kline AJ, Gonzales J, Beach WR. Pitfalls associ-
ated with FasT-Fix meniscal repair. Arthroscopy 2002; 18:
939-943 [PMID: 12368795 DOI: 10.1053/jars.2002.36146]
67 Grant JA, Wilde J, Miller BS, Bedi A. Comparison of inside-
out and all-inside techniques for the repair of isolated
meniscal tears: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2012;
40: 459-468 [PMID: 21737837 DOI: 10.1177/036354651141170
1]
68 Nepple JJ, Dunn WR, Wright RW. Meniscal repair out-
comes at greater than five years: a systematic literature
review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94:
2222-2227 [PMID: 23318612 DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01584]
P- Reviewers: Serhan H, Sadoghi P S- Editor: Wen LL
L- Editor: A E- Editor: Lu YJ
Mordecai SC
et al
. Management of meniscal tears
© 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
8226 Regency Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
Telephone: +1-925-223-8242
Fax: +1-925-223-8243
E-mail: bpgofce@wjgnet.com
Help Desk: http://www.wjgnet.com/esps/helpdesk.aspx
http://www.wjgnet.com
