The accuracy of a newly developed guide system in medial meniscus posterior root repair: a comparison between two aiming guides

PURPOSE@#Posterior root repair of the medial meniscus (MM) can prevent rapid progression of knee osteoarthritis in patients with a MM posterior root tear (MMPRT). The anatomic reattachment of the MM posterior root is considered to be critical in a transtibial pullout repair. However, tibial tunnel creation at the anatomic attachment is technically difficult. We hypothesized that a newly developed point-contact aiming guide [Unicorn Meniscal Root (UMR) guide] can create the tibial tunnel at a better position rather than a previously designed MMPRT guide. The aim of this study was to compare the position of the created tibial tunnel between the two meniscal root repair guides.@*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#Thirty-eight patients underwent transtibial pullout repairs. Tibial tunnel creation was performed using the UMR guide (19 cases) or MMPRT guide (19 cases). Three-dimensional computed tomography images of the tibial surface were evaluated using the Tsukada's measurement method postoperatively. The expected anatomic center of the MM posterior root attachment was defined as the center of three tangential lines referring to three anatomic bony landmarks (anterior border of the posterior cruciate ligament, lateral margin of the medial tibial plateau, and retro-eminence ridge). The expected anatomic center and tibial tunnel center were evaluated using the percentage-based posterolateral location on the tibial surface. The distance between the anatomic center and tunnel center was calculated.@*RESULTS@#The anatomic center of the MM posterior root footprint was located at a position of 79.2% posterior and 39.5% lateral. The mean of the tunnel center in the UMR guide was similar to that in the MMPRT guide (posterior direction, P = 0.096; lateral direction, P = 0.280). The mean distances between the tunnel center and the anatomic center were 4.06 and 3.99mm in the UMR and MMPRT guide group, respectively (P = 0.455).@*CONCLUSIONS@#The UMR guide, as well as the MMPRT guide, is a useful device to create favorable tibial tunnels at the MM posterior root attachment for pullout repairs in patients with MMPRTs.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV

Time-Dependent Increase in Medial Meniscus Extrusion after Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tear Analyzed by Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging

PURPOSE: Medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) causes progression of medial meniscus extrusion (MME). This study aims to calculate the progression rate of MME based on findings in two preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and determine the associated factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 33 patients (27 females and 6 males; mean age, 60 years) who underwent MRI twice, at a mean interval of 48 days. We measured the medial meniscus body width, medial joint space width (MJSW), and MME. The MME progression rate was derived from regression analysis of the increase in MME (ΔMME) between the two MRI scans. In addition, the correlations of the MME increase rate with age, body mass index, femorotibial angle, and MJSW were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean MME increased from 3.4 mm to 4.5 mm (p<0.001). A good correlation was observed between ΔMME and the interval of MRI scans (R²=0.621), and the MME progression rate was 0.020 mm per day. A moderate correlation was observed between the MME increase rate and the MJSW (R²=0.432). CONCLUSIONS: The MME progression rate was rapid in MMPRT and narrowing of the MJSW was associated with the progression of MME. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V, Cross-sectional study

Meniscal Extrusion Progresses Shortly after the Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tear

PURPOSE: Medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRT) induce medial meniscus extrusion (MME). However, the time-dependent extent of MME in patients suffering from the MMPRT remains unclear. This study evaluated the extent of MME after painful popping events that occurred at the onset of the MMPRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients who had an episode of posteromedial painful popping were investigated. All the patients were diagnosed as having an MMPRT by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 12 months after painful popping. Medial meniscus body width (MMBW), absolute MME, and relative MME (100×absolute MME/MMBW) were assessed among three groups divided according to the time after painful popping events: early period ( < 1 month), subacute period (1–3 months), and chronic period (4–12 months). RESULTS: In the early period, absolute and relative MMEs were 3.0 mm and 32.7%, respectively. Absolute MME increased up to 4.2 mm and 5.8 mm during the subacute and chronic periods, respectively. Relative MME also progressed to 49.2% and 60.3% in the subacute and chronic periods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that absolute and relative MMEs increased progressively within the short period after the onset of symptomatic MMPRT. Our results suggest that early diagnosis of an MMPRT may be important to prevent progression of MME following the MMPRT.

Comparison of Continuous Epidural Analgesia, Patient-Controlled Analgesia with Morphine, and Continuous Three-in-One Femoral Nerve Block on Postoperative Outcomes after Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain relief can be achieved with various modalities. However, there are only few reports that have analyzed postoperative analgesic techniques in total hip arthroplasty patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the postoperative outcomes of three different analgesic techniques after total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the influence of three analgesic techniques on postoperative rehabilitation after total hip arthroplasty in 90 patients divided into three groups (n = 30 patients per group). Postoperative analgesia consisted of continuous epidural analgesia (Epi group), patient-controlled analgesia with morphine (PCA group), or a continuous femoral nerve block (CFNB group). We measured the following parameters relating to postoperative outcome: visual analog scale scores, the use of supplemental analgesia, side effects, length of the hospital stay, plasma D-dimer levels, and the Harris hip score. RESULTS: Each group had low pain scores with no significant differences between the groups. The PCA group had a lower frequency of supplemental analgesia use compared to the Epi and CFNB groups. Side effects (nausea/vomiting, inappetence) and day 7 D-dimer levels were significantly lower in the CFNB group (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the length of the hospital stay or the Harris hip score. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no clinically significant differences in outcomes between the three groups, the CFNB provided good pain relief which was equal to that of the other analgesics with fewer side effects and lower D-dimer levels in hospitalized patients following total hip arthroplasty.