Citations 1
Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: 6-Year Follow-up Results From the MARS Cohort
Group;, MARS, Fox, Jake A. , Huston, Laura J. , Haas, Amanda K. , Cooper, Daniel E. , Dunn, Warren R. , Lantz, Brett A., Amendola, Annunziato , Annunziata, Christopher C., Arciero, Robert A. , Bach, Bernard R. , Baker, Champ L., Bartolozzi, Arthur R. , Baumgarten, Keith M. , Berg, Jeffrey H., Bernas, Geoffrey A., Brockmeier, Stephen F. , Bush‐Joseph, Charles A., Butler, J. Brad, Carey, James L. , Carpenter, James E. , Cole, Brian J. , Cooper, Jonathan M. , Creighton, R. Alexander , Flanigan, David C. , Frederick, Robert W., Ganley, Theodore J. , Gatt, Charles J. , Gecha, Steven R., Hame, Sharon L. , Hannafin, Jo A., Harner, Christopher D. , Harris, Norman Lindsay, Hechtman, Keith S., Hershman, Elliott B., Hoellrich, Rudolf G., Johnson, David C. , Kaeding, Christopher C., Kamath, Ganesh V. , Klootwyk, Thomas E., Levy, Bruce A. , Benjamin, C. , Maiers, G. Peter, Marx, Robert G. , Matava, Matthew J. , Mathien, Gregory M., McCormack, Robert G. , Miller, Bruce S., Nissen, Carl W. , O’Neill, Daniel F., Parker, Richard D., Purnell, Mark L., Ramappa, Arun J. , Rauh, Michael A. , Rettig, Arthur C., Sekiya, Jon K., Shea, Kevin G. , Slauterbeck, James R., Smith, Matthew V. , Svoboda, Col. Steven J., Taft, Timothy N., Tenuta, Joachim J., Tingstad, Edwin M., Vidal, Armando F. , Viskontas, Darius G., White, Richard A., Williams, James S., Wolcott, Michelle L., York, James J. , Wright, Rick W. , Svoboda, Steven J. , Group;, MARS, Pennings, Jacquelyn S. , Allen, Christina R. , DeBerardino, Thomas M. , Spindler, Kurt P , Stuart, Michael J., Brophy, Robert H. , Carpenter, James E., Cox, Charles L. , David, Tal S. , Flanigan, David C. , Giffin, J. Robert , Johnson, David C., Johnson, Timothy S. , Jones, Morgan H. , Kaeding, Christopher C. , Marx, Robert G. , McAllister, David R. , McCarty, Eric C. , Miller, Bruce S., Owens, Brett D. , Sherman, Orrin H. , Spang, Jeffrey T. , Vidal, Armando F. , Wolf, Brian R.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine | November 12, 2025 | Volume: 53 | Issue: 14 | Pages: 3435-3445
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.