Background: Failure rates of repaired bucket-handle medial meniscal tears (BHMMTs) concomitant with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are as high as 20%. The outcomes of posteromedial portal suture hook repair have not been compared with all-inside repair techniques for this subtype of meniscal lesion. Purpose/Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and failure rates of patients who underwent BHMMT repair concomitant with ACLR using an all-inside technique, suture hook + all-inside technique, or suture hook + outside-in technique. It was hypothesized that no significant differences in failure rates would be found between the groups. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with a BHMMT who underwent meniscal repair during primary ACLR and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients were grouped based on the meniscal repair technique used: all-inside repair, suture hook + all-inside repair, or suture hook + outside-in repair. At the end of the study period, secondary medial meniscectomy rates were determined. Results: The study population comprised 253 patients who underwent repair of a BHMMT with concomitant ACLR with a mean follow-up of 94.0 ± 47.6 months. A total of 114 patients (45.1%) underwent all-inside repair, 61 patients (24.1%) underwent suture hook + all-inside repair, and 78 patients (30.8%) underwent suture hook + outside-in repair. Overall, there were 36 failures. The failure rates were 20.2%, 14.8%, and 5.1%, respectively ( P = .0135). All-inside repairs were >4 times more likely to fail than suture hook + outside-in repairs (hazard ratio [HR], 4.103; 95% CI, 1.369-12.296; P = .0117). Failure was also 3 times higher (HR, 2.943; 95% CI, 1.224-7.075; P = .0159) for patients <30 years of age compared with those aged ≥30 years. An additional anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) was also found to reduce the failure rate of repaired BHMMTs concomitant with ACLR. Conclusion: Combined suture hook + outside-in repair of BHMMTs resulted in significantly fewer failures than all other techniques. Furthermore, age <30 years and no additional ALLR were associated with higher failure rates.

Purpose: Meniscal lesions are commonly associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. Meniscal repair, when possible, is widely accepted as the standard of care. Despite advancements in surgical and rehabilitation techniques, meniscal repair may impact muscle recovery when performed in conjunction with ACL reconstruction. The objective of this study was to explore if meniscal repairs in the context of ACL reconstruction affected muscle recovery compared to isolated ACL reconstruction. Methods: Fifty-nine patients with isolated ACL reconstruction were compared to 35 patients with ACL reconstruction with an associated meniscal repair. All ACL reconstructions were performed using hamstring grafts with screw-interference graft fixation. Isokinetic muscle testing was performed between six and eight months of follow-up. Muscle recovery between both groups was compared. A further subgroup analysis was performed to compare muscle recovery function of gender and meniscal tear location. Tegner scores were assessed at six months’ follow-up. Results: No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding muscle recovery. No difference in muscle recovery was found concerning gender. Lesion of both menisci significantly increased the deficit of hamstrings muscular strength at 60°/s compared to a lesion of one meniscus (26.7% ± 15.2 vs. 18.1% ± 13.5, p = 0.018) and in eccentric test (32.4% ± 26.2 vs. 18.1% ± 13.5, p = 0.040). No significant differences were found concerning the Tegner score. Conclusion: Meniscal repairs performed during an ACL reconstruction do not impact muscle recovery at 6–8 months post-operatively compared to an isolated ACL reconstruction. However, reparations of both menisci appear to impact hamstring muscle recovery negatively. Level of evidence: III, Retrospective cohort study

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the time from injury to ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and the rate as well as repairability of meniscal tears. Secondary aims were to evaluate the relationship between meniscal injury and Tegner Activity Scale, age, BMI, and gender. Methods Between 2012 and 2022, 1,840 consecutive ACLRs were performed. A total of 1,317 ACLRs were included with a mean patient age of 31.2 years ± 10.5 . Meniscal tear was assessed during arthroscopy using the ISAKOS classiication. Time from injury to ACLR, Tegner Activity Scale, age, BMI and gender were analysed in uni-and then in multivariate analyses. Patients were divided into four groups according to the time from injury to surgery: < 3 months (427; 32%), 3-6 months (388; 29%), 6-12 months (248; 19%) and > 12 months (254; 19%). Results Delaying ACLR > 12 months signiicantly increased the rate of medial meniscal (MM) injury (OR 1.14; p < 0.001). No correlation was found between a 3-or 6-month time from injury to surgery and MM tear. Performing ACLR > 3, 6, or 12 months after injury did not signiicantly increase the rate of lateral meniscal (LM) injury. Increasing Tegner activity scale was signiicantly associated with a lower rate of MM injury (OR 0.90; p = 0.020). An age > 30 years (OR 1.07; p = 0.025) and male gender (OR 1.13; p < 0.0001) was also associated with an increased rate of MM injury. Age > 30 years decreased the rate of MM repair (OR 0.85; p < 0.001). Male gender increased the rate of LM tear (OR 1.10; p = 0.001). Conclusion Performing ACLR more than 12 months after injury was associated with increased rates of MM injury but not with lower rates of repairable lesions. An increased pre-injury Tegner activity score was associated with a decreased rate of MM tear. Age > 30 years was associated with an increased rate of MM tear with concomitant ACL injury and a decreased rate of repairability of MM tear. ACLR should be performed within 12 months from injury to prevent from the risk of MM injury. Level of Evidence Level III.