Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy plus optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in young patients aged under 45 years with traumatic meniscal tears. Methods. We conducted a multicentre, open-labelled, randomized controlled trial in patients aged 18 to 45 years, with a recent onset, traumatic, MRI-verified, isolated meniscal tear without knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomized to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or standardized physical therapy with an optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy after three months of follow-up. We performed a cost-utility analysis on the randomization groups to compare both treatments over a 24-month follow-up period. Cost utility was calculated as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared to physical therapy. Calculations were performed from a healthcare system perspective and a societal perspective. Results. A total of 100 patients were included: 49 were randomized to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and 51 to physical therapy. In the physical therapy group, 21 patients (41%) received delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy during follow-up. Over 24 months, patients in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group had a mean 0.005 QALYs lower quality of life (95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.14). The cost-utility ratio was €-160,000/QALY from the healthcare perspective and €-223,372/QALY from the societal perspective, indicating that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy incurs additional costs without any added health benefit. Conclusion. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is unlikely to be cost-effective in treating young patients with isolated traumatic meniscal tears compared to physical therapy as a primary health intervention. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy leads to a similar quality of life, but higher costs, compared to physical therapy plus optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(11):1177–1183

Meniscal tears are the most common injury in the knee, affecting 66/100,000 people/year. Surgical treatment includes arthroscopic meniscectomy or meniscal repair. Little is known regarding medium-term outcomes following these procedures in isolated meniscal tears. This study aims to quantitatively evaluate patients with meniscal tears, and those who have undergone meniscectomy and meniscal repair using validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), further exploring factors which affect surgical outcomes. This observational study screened 334 patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery at South Tyneside Hospital since August 2013. 134 patients with isolated meniscal tears were invited to complete postal PROMs. A combination of patient notes and radiological imaging was used to collect information of interest including age, gender, knee-laterality, injured meniscus, tear pattern, procedure performed, complications, and associated injuries. A total of 115 patients (pre-operative patients with current meniscal tear (n=36), meniscectomy (n=63), meniscal repair (n=16)) were included in the analysis with 96% successful PROM completion. Both meniscectomy and meniscal repairs (mean 55-months follow-up) showed better outcomes than pre-operative patients with meniscal tears. Meniscal repairs demonstrated superior outcomes across all PROMs when compared to meniscectomy, with a greater mean overall KOOS score of 17.2 (p=0.009). Factors including higher pre-operative Kellgren-Lawrence Grade, pre-operative articular cartilage lesions and bilateral meniscectomies were shown to negatively influence outcomes. Both meniscectomy and meniscal repair maintain clinical benefit at mean 55-months follow-up, affirming their use for treatment of meniscal tears. When feasible, meniscal repair should be performed preferentially over meniscectomy in isolated meniscal tears. Identified predictive factors allow adequate treatment stratification in specific patient groups

Abstract. Introduction. There is currently very little evidence which can be used to guide surgeons treating skeletally immature patients with suspected meniscal injury. The aim of our modified Delphi study was to develop comprehensive recommendations for the management of isolated meniscal tears in skeletally immature children. Methodology. An international, two round, modified Delphi consensus was completed. Included ‘experts’ were identified as having an established adult and/or paediatric knee practice and either: 1) Faculty at the international kid's knee meeting, 2) Active member of the complex national paediatric MDT group, or 3) faculty on recognised national course aimed at teaching knee surgeons regarding the management of meniscal lesions. A threshold of 70% was used to identify consensus. Results. A total of 43 experts (Round 1) and 41 experts (Round 2) took part in the Delphi study. Surgeons from the UK, Europe, USA and South America took part. 34 statements were identified exploring 4 main domains – clinical diagnosis, investigation, management and specialist tears. Following round 1 consensus was reached on 17 (50%) statements, subsequently after completion of round 2 consensus was reached on 28 (82%) statements, leaving 6 (18%) with no consensus. Conclusions. This is the first modified delphi consensus which provides evidence for surgeons treating skeletally immature children with isolated meniscal tears. Further studies are required to provide evidence for the areas where no consensus was reached

Traditionally, sports Injuries have been sub-optimally managed through Emergency Departments (ED) in the public health system due to a lack of adequate referral processes. Fractures are ruled out through plain radiographs followed by a reactive process involving patient initiated further follow up and investigation. Consequently, significant soft tissue and chondral injuries can go undiagnosed during periods in which early intervention can significantly affect natural progression. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to assess the efficacy of an innovative Sports Injury Pathway introduced to detect and treat significant soft tissue injuries. A Sports Injury Pathway was introduced at Fiona Stanley Hospital (WA, Australia) in April 2019 as a collaboration between the ED, Physiotherapy and Orthopaedic Departments. ED practitioners were advised to have a low threshold for referral, especially in the presence of a history of a twisting knee injury, shoulder dislocation or any suggestion of a hip tendon injury. All referrals were triaged by the Perth Sports Surgery Fellow with early follow-up in our Sports Trauma Clinics with additional investigations if required. A detailed database of all referrals was maintained, and relevant data was extracted for analysis over the first 3 years of this pathway. 570 patients were included in the final analysis. 54% of injuries occurred while playing sport, with AFL injuries constituting the most common contact-sports injury (13%). Advanced Scope Physiotherapists were the largest source of referrals (60%). A total of 460 MRI scans were eventually ordered comprising 81% of total referrals. Regarding Knee MRIs, 86% identified a significant structural injury with ACL injuries being the most common (33%) followed by isolated meniscal tears (16%) and multi-ligament knee injuries (11%). 95% of Shoulder MRI scans showed significant pathology. 39% of patients required surgical management, and of these 50% were performed within 3 months from injury. The Fiona Stanley Hospital Sports Injury Pathway has demonstrated its clear value in successfully diagnosing and treating an important cohort of patients who present to our Emergency Department. This low threshold/streamlined referral pathway has found that the vast majority of these patients suffer significant structural injuries that may have been otherwise missed, while providing referring practitioners and patients access to prompt imaging and high-quality Orthopaedic sports trauma services. We recommend the implementation of a similar Sports Injury Pathway at all secondary and tertiary Orthopaedic Centres

Introduction To evaluate the Fast-Fix meniscal repair system, which is a disposable, pre knotted ‘all-inside’ suture with similar pull out strength to vertical mattress suture. Materials and Methods Between September 2001 and May 2002, we performed 39 meniscal repairs in 38 patients, 1 patient had bilateral injury. The average age was 24(16–37). The cause of the meniscal injury was sports related in 70%, unrelated to sports in 16% and with no history of trauma in 14%. The average time from injury to repair was 2–3 weeks. The majority had associated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture 73% (28 patients). 23 patients had medial meniscal and 16 had lateral meniscal repair. All cases were done as a day case by the senior author. The meniscus was repaired, if the tear was vertically oriented and in the periphery. Two Fast-Fix sutures were used for each repair. Concomitant ACL injury was reconstructed 6 weeks post meniscal repair. Meniscus was considered to have healed if a) confirmed at arthroscopy or b) No mechanical symptoms after repair. 31 patients had repeat arthroscopy, 28 for ACL reconstruction, 2 for persistent mechanical symptoms and 1 following re-injury. Results The range of clinical follow up was between 3 to 20 months. In 26 patients healing of the meniscus was confirmed during arthroscopy. 7 patients had no mechanical symptoms following repair. The healing rate was 86% (33 patients). 5 repairs were considered as failures and were excised subsequently. The healing rate was higher in patients with associated ACL injury (92%) compared to isolated meniscal tear healing rate of 70%. Discussion We feel early results show the Fast-Fix to be safe, simple to use all- inside meniscal repair technique and has the advantage of vertical mattress sutures and no separate incision. Healing rates with combined ACL injuries are better than isolated meniscal tears

The aim of the present study was to compare the mechanical properties of the torn menisci between stable and ACL unstable knees. Material and method: Ten medial menisci from isolated bucket handle tears and ten from ACL deþcient knees (injury < 3 months) during ACL reconstruction were obtained after an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. They were þxed and tested mechanically in tension. The modulus of elasticity (E), maximum stress σmax, maximum load, and stress-strain curves were evaluated. Results: In the isolated tears E was 56.35 Mpa (median values) and in the ACL deþcient knees was 163.0 MPa and it was signiþcant (P=0,023). The maximum failure stress σmax was 9,22 Mpa for the þrst group and 17,26 Mpa for the latter and this was also signiþcant (P=0.04) Conclusions: The bucket handle torn menisci from the stable knees had inferior mechanical characteristics compared to the ACL deþcient knees. In other words isolated meniscal tears seem to be an inferior material compared to those of the ACL deþcient knees. The authors believe that it is worth considering a low cost and morbidity partial meniscectomy in isolated bucket handle tears, instead of a more demanding and long lasting meniscal repair operation followed by an also longer rehabilitation time

Purpose: To investigate the validity of previous observations that meniscal repair has a better success rate when associated with ACL reconstruction. Methods and Results: The case notes of 170 patients who underwent meniscal repair between May 1999 and May 2007 were analysed for causes of re-operation and relation to status of the ACL. Mean age at the time of surgery was 28 years. 41 patients underwent re-operation at a mean time interval of 21 months (range 2 weeks - 87 months). 79 patients (Group A) had isolated meniscal tears. 44 patients (Group B) had meniscal repair at the same time as elective ACL reconstruction and underwent brace-free, accelerated rehabilitation. 47 patients (Group C) had meniscal repair in association with ACL disruption and underwent staged ligament reconstruction. In Group A, 23 patients underwent re-operation (Indications; meniscal symptoms 21, stiffness 1, infection 1). Nineteen repairs (23.8%) were found to have failed. In Group B, 15 patients underwent re-operation (Indications; meniscal symptoms 12, stiffness 1, revision ACL 2). Twelve (27.2%) repairs were found to have failed. In Group C, Nine (19.6%) repairs were found to have failed. 6 at the time of staged ACL reconstruction and 3 subsequently, at further arthroscopy. There was no statistical difference between the groups with respect to the incidence of failed meniscal repairs. Analysis of possible predictive factors including age, gender, location of lesion and the type of repair did not show statistical significance. Conclusions: Reoperation rate following meniscal repair is high. Meniscal repair for tears associated with ACL disruption in this group did not appear to have a higher success rate compared to isolated tears. This raises questions regarding the current practice of ignoring meniscal repair and instituting brace-free, early, aggressive rehabilitation following concomitant ACL reconstruction

The April 2013 Trauma Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: ankle sprains; paediatric knee haemarthroses; evidence to support a belief; ‘Moonboot’ saves the day; pamphlets and outcomes; poor gait in pilons; lactate and surgical timing; and marginal results with marginal impaction.