A Review of Revision Meniscal Repair: Clinical Considerations and Outcomes.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Emily Berzolla, Vishal Sundaram, Eric Strauss
{"title":"A Review of Revision Meniscal Repair: Clinical Considerations and Outcomes.","authors":"Emily Berzolla, Vishal Sundaram, Eric Strauss","doi":"10.1007/s12178-025-09968-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Meniscus repair is preferred over meniscectomy when possible due to its ability to preserve meniscal tissue and reduce long-term joint degeneration. However, meniscus repair has a risk of failure, resulting in an increasing number of patients presenting with symptoms following a failed repair. Revision meniscus repair remains an option for symptomatic patients, yet guidance on indications, surgical techniques, and expected outcomes is limited. The purpose of this review is to summarize indications, surgical approaches, and outcomes associated with revision meniscus repair.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Patient-specific factors such as age, activity level, and modifiable risk factors influence revision repair success. Younger, highly active individuals may be at higher risk of retear due to increased mechanical stress. Tissue quality and vascularity are critical, as degenerative changes and poor perfusion increase failure rates. The gold-standard inside-out technique is often favored for revision repairs due to its superior biomechanical stability. However, all-inside and outside-in techniques remain viable options in specific cases. Biological augmentation, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and marrow venting, may enhance healing potential but requires further investigation. Revision meniscus repair demonstrates comparable failure rates and functional outcomes to primary repair, with reported failure rates ranging from 21-33% at mid-term follow-up. Many patients successfully return to high levels of activity following revision repair. Although younger age and high activity levels may predispose to failure, revision meniscus repair remains a viable option for preserving meniscal integrity and optimizing long-term joint health.</p>","PeriodicalId":10950,"journal":{"name":"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"344-352"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283492/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-025-09968-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Meniscus repair is preferred over meniscectomy when possible due to its ability to preserve meniscal tissue and reduce long-term joint degeneration. However, meniscus repair has a risk of failure, resulting in an increasing number of patients presenting with symptoms following a failed repair. Revision meniscus repair remains an option for symptomatic patients, yet guidance on indications, surgical techniques, and expected outcomes is limited. The purpose of this review is to summarize indications, surgical approaches, and outcomes associated with revision meniscus repair.

Recent findings: Patient-specific factors such as age, activity level, and modifiable risk factors influence revision repair success. Younger, highly active individuals may be at higher risk of retear due to increased mechanical stress. Tissue quality and vascularity are critical, as degenerative changes and poor perfusion increase failure rates. The gold-standard inside-out technique is often favored for revision repairs due to its superior biomechanical stability. However, all-inside and outside-in techniques remain viable options in specific cases. Biological augmentation, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and marrow venting, may enhance healing potential but requires further investigation. Revision meniscus repair demonstrates comparable failure rates and functional outcomes to primary repair, with reported failure rates ranging from 21-33% at mid-term follow-up. Many patients successfully return to high levels of activity following revision repair. Although younger age and high activity levels may predispose to failure, revision meniscus repair remains a viable option for preserving meniscal integrity and optimizing long-term joint health.

半月板翻修修复的临床考虑和结果综述。
目的:在可能的情况下,半月板修复优于半月板切除术,因为半月板修复能够保存半月板组织并减少长期的关节变性。然而,半月板修复有失败的风险,导致越来越多的患者在修复失败后出现症状。半月板翻修修复仍然是有症状患者的一种选择,但关于适应症、手术技术和预期结果的指导是有限的。本综述的目的是总结与半月板翻修修复相关的适应症、手术入路和结果。最近的研究发现:患者的特定因素,如年龄、活动水平和可改变的危险因素影响翻修修复的成功。由于机械应力的增加,年轻、活跃的个体可能有更高的复发风险。组织质量和血管是至关重要的,因为退行性改变和灌注不良会增加失败率。由于其优越的生物力学稳定性,黄金标准的由内而外技术经常被用于翻修修复。然而,在特定情况下,全由内而外的技术仍然是可行的选择。生物增强,包括富血小板血浆(PRP)和骨髓通气,可能增强愈合潜力,但需要进一步研究。半月板翻修修复的失败率和功能结果与初次修复相当,中期随访时报道的失败率为21-33%。许多患者在翻修修复后成功地恢复了高水平的活动。尽管年轻和高活动量可能导致半月板修复失败,但半月板翻修修复仍然是保持半月板完整性和优化长期关节健康的可行选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: This journal intends to review the most significant recent developments in the field of musculoskeletal medicine. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by expert world-renowned authors, the journal aims to serve all those involved in the diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of musculoskeletal-related conditions. We accomplish this aim by appointing authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as rehabilitation of the knee and hip, sports medicine, trauma, pediatrics, health policy, customization in arthroplasty, and rheumatology. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. We also provide commentaries from well-known figures in the field, and an Editorial Board of more than 20 diverse members suggests topics of special interest to their country/region and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信