4.5 Article

Arthroscopic meniscus repair with bioabsorbable arrows

Journal

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/jars.2002.30615

Keywords

meniscus; repair; bioabsorbable arrow; arthroscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The clinical results of a single surgeon's experience with Meniscus Arrows (Bionx, Blue Bell, PA) for meniscal repair are reviewed and reported to determine the safety and efficacy of this device. Type of Study: Consecutive sample. Methods: Over a 3-year period, the senior author has used only Meniscus Arrows for all meniscal repairs. All patients who underwent meniscal repair with at least 12 months of follow-up were evaluated for this study. Thirty patients had a meniscal repair, and 29 were available for follow-up. The average age at surgery was 29 years (range, 15 to 45 years) and there were 24 male and 5 female patients; 25 patients had an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with the meniscal repair, 2 repairs were performed in ACL-deficient knees, and 2 repairs were performed in ACL stable knees. The average follow-up was 24 months (range, 12 to 42 months). Results: The average Lysholm knee scores for ACL reconstruction, ACL-intact, and ACL-deficient knees improved from 47, 6, and 35, respectively, to 91, 96, and 81 postoperatively. Tegner activity scores improved from 2.7, 0, and 1.5, respectively, to 7.4, 6.5, and 4.5 after surgery. There were no surgical complications, no infections, and no neurovascular injuries. Five patients had mild subcutaneous irritation caused by the Arrow tips, but in each case this resolved within 3 to 7 months. There were 2 failures (7%) that required later arthroscopy and partial meniscectomy. One failure was in an ACL-deficient knee, and the other was in an ACL-reconstructed knee. Conclusions: Although the data presented in this report are based on short-term clinical follow-up, the preliminary results of the Meniscal Arrow repair are encouraging.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available