These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Inside-Out Repair of the Meniscus in Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Absorbable Versus Nonabsorbable Sutures.
    Author: Yoon KH, Park JY, Kwon YB, Lee YJ, Kim EJ, Kim SG.
    Journal: Arthroscopy; 2020 Apr; 36(4):1074-1082. PubMed ID: 31948720.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes of meniscal repair using absorbable versus nonabsorbable sutures in patients undergoing concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. METHODS: Data of 142 patients who underwent meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using either absorbable or nonabsorbable sutures for longitudinal meniscal tear were retrospectively reviewed. Inside-out suture technique was used for all meniscal repairs. Weight bearing and flexion (>90°) were allowed after 6 weeks postoperatively. Clinical evaluations were assessed by the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity score preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up. MRI outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared to identify the successful healing (complete or partial healing) rate and incidence of additional meniscal tears. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the results of medial or lateral meniscus. RESULTS: Eighty patients underwent meniscal repair using absorbable sutures (mean age, 26.3 ± 11.9 years) and 62 patients with nonabsorbable sutures (mean age, 27.2 ± 10.0 years). There were no differences in zone and length of meniscal tears and stability tests between the groups. At a 2-year follow-up, all clinical scores had improved in both groups but did not differ significantly between the groups. Successful healing rate based on 1-year postoperative MRI was not significantly different between the absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures (93.7% vs 96.8%, P = .469). However, the absorbable sutures showed a lower additional tear incidence than the nonabsorbable sutures (2.5% vs 9.6%, P = .031). Subgroup analysis showed that the successful healing rate was not significantly different between the suture materials in both the medial and lateral menisci. CONCLUSIONS: The use of absorbable sutures leads to comparable healing rates to and lower incidence of additional tears than nonabsorbable sutures in patients undergoing meniscal repair with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]