Poster 303: Outcomes Following Repair of Radial Meniscus Tears Compared to Bucket Handle Meniscus Tears
Authors: Burnett Zachary , Monroe Grace , Cavendish Parker , Milliron Eric , Karom Jarod , Schildmeyer Anna , Kashyap Anjali , Barker Tyler , Kaeding Christopher , Kaeding Christopher , Magnussen Robert , Flanigan David 
Published: October 2024

Objectives: Preserving the meniscus has become a priority in managing meniscal tears with advancement of meniscus repair techniques. Meniscal repair, as opposed to partial meniscectomy, reduces risk of development and progression of knee osteoarthritis. Radial meniscus tears have traditionally been associated with a poor prognosis because they occur perpendicular to circumferential meniscal fibers, compromising hoop tension. Advances in surgical technique and biologic augmentation have facilitated repair of these complex injuries. The purpose of this study was to compare post-operative complication and surgical revision rates in patients who underwent repair of a radial meniscus tear versus bucket-handle meniscus tear. We hypothesized the outcomes of repair of radial meniscus tear would be similar to a matched group of patients who underwent repair of a bucket handle meniscus tear. Methods: A retrospective study was performed to identify patients who underwent repair of radial meniscus tear. Chart review was performed for 1506 patients who underwent meniscus repair from 2012 to 2019, and demographic information, type of meniscus tear, concomitant ACL reconstruction, post-operative complications, repeat surgeries, and failure at the repair site were detailed in a database. Patients who underwent repair of a radial tear were matched with patients who underwent repair of a bucket-handle tear based on sex, age (within 5 years), BMI (within 5 kg/m2), meniscus laterality, and concomitant ACL reconstruction. Isolated meniscus repairs were augmented with platelet rich plasma (PRP). Results: Fifty patients (age, 31.8 ± 15.2 years; BMI, 30.2 ± 6.4 kg/m2) were identified who underwent a radial meniscus tear repair. Of these patients, 16 (32.0%) were female and 23 (46.0%) underwent concomitant ACL reconstruction. Complications including recurrent swelling, stiffness, persistent pain, and repeat injury were reported in 15 patients (30.0%). Six patients underwent repeat surgery (12.0%). Four repeat surgical patients, who had previously undergone meniscus repair and concomitant ACL reconstruction, were found to have an intact radial repair at the time of second surgery, and underwent repeat surgery for a reason unrelated to the radial tear repair (e.g. cyclops lesion, synovectomy, new meniscus tear). Two patients had a radial tear repair failure that required surgical revision (4.0%). Radial tear repair patients who underwent concomitant ACL reconstruction differed significantly from those who did not only in age (ACL group, 26.0 ± 10.9 y; non-ACL group, 36.6 ± 16.7 y; p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in post-operative complications, repeat surgeries, or failures between the radial and bucket-handle tear repair patients. Conclusions: Repair of radial meniscus tears with contemporary techniques and biological enhancement with either ACL reconstruction or PRP can be expected to have similar outcomes to repairs of bucket handle meniscus tears.