Level III, therapeutic study.

No abstract

Background:There are limited data comparing the outcomes of all-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair techniques.Purpose:To assess failure rates and clinical outcomes after the surgical repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears utilizing either an all-inside or inside-out technique.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Patients with bucket-handle meniscal tears undergoing all-inside or inside-out repair at a single institution between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. A total of 28 mensici repaired utilizing second-generation all-inside suturing devices and 42 menisci repaired using an inside-out technique were eligible for inclusion. Rigorous propensity matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, tear laterality, rim width, and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resulting in a total of 40 patients equally distributed between the 2 repair techniques for comparison. Retear-free survival as well as preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and physical examination findings were subsequently analyzed.Results:Twenty patients who underwent all-inside repair (14 male; mean age, 23.7 ± 6.7 years) were successfully propensity matched to 20 patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair (15 male; mean age, 22.5 ± 7.6 years), with a mean retear-free follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 2.5-7.4 years). Four (20%) all-inside repairs and 4 (20%) inside-out repairs failed over the course of follow-up (P > .999), with a mean time to failure of 2.7 years (range, 1.3-4.4 years) and 5.0 years (range, 0.8-7.5 years), respectively (P = .25). Increasing patient age trended toward a decreased clinical retear rate, independent of the repair technique (hazard ratio, 0.86; P = .056). There were no significant differences in the Tegner scores, IKDC scores, or range of motion between the groups as a whole or when subcategorizing by age, sex, body mass index, tear complexity, rim width, isolated versus concomitant ACLR, or medial- versus lateral-sided repair. There were no complications in the all-inside group, while there was a 10% rate of minor complications in the inside-out group (P = .49).Conclusion:Overall, satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable at short-term to midterm follow-up with both inside-out and all-inside repair techniques of bucket-handle meniscal tears in rigorously matched patients with similar meniscal tear patterns.

Aims Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) reliably improves shoulder pain and function for a variety of indications. However, the safety and efficacy of RSA in elderly patients is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to report the mortality, morbidity, complications, reoperations, and outcomes of primary RSA in patients aged > 80 years. Patients and Methods Between 2004 and 2013, 242 consecutive primary RSAs were performed in patients aged > 80 years (mean 83.3 years (sd 3.1)). Of these, 53 were lost to follow-up before two years and ten had died within two years of surgery, leaving 179 for analysis of survivorship, pain, motion, and strength at a minimum of two years or until revision surgery. All 242 patients were considered for the analysis of 90-day, one-year, and overall mortality, medical complications (90-day and overall), surgical complications, and reoperations. The indications for surgery included rotator cuff arthropathy, osteoarthritis, fracture, the sequela of trauma, avascular necrosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. A retrospective review of the medical records was performed to collect all variables. Survivorship free of revision surgery was calculated at two and five years. Results One patient (0.4%) died within the first 90 days. A total of 45 patients (19%) were known to have died at the time of the final follow-up, with a median time to death of 67.7 months (interquartile range 40.4 to 94.7) postoperatively. Medical complications occurred in six patients (3%) and surgical complications occurred in 21/179 patients (12%). Survivorship free from revision was 98.9% at two years and 98.3% at five years; survivorship free from loosening was 99.5% at final follow-up. The presence of peripheral vascular disease correlated with a higher complication rate. Conclusion Primary RSA was safe and effective in patients aged > 80 years, with a relatively low rate of medical and surgical complications. Thus, age alone should not be a contraindication to primary RSA in patients aged > 80 years. However, a careful evaluation of comorbidities is required in this age group when considering primary RSA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1520–1525