Two-Tunnel Transtibial Repair of Radial Meniscus Tears Produces Comparable Results to Inside-Out Repair of Vertical Meniscus Tears.

BACKGROUND: Radial meniscus tears disrupt the circumferential fibers and thereby compromise meniscus integrity. Historically, radial tears were often treated with meniscectomy because of an incomplete understanding of the biomechanical consequences of these tears, limited information regarding the biomechanical performance of repair, and the technical difficulty associated with repair. There is a paucity of studies on the outcomes of the repair of radial meniscus tears. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to determine the outcomes of 2-tunnel transtibial repair of radial meniscus tears and compare these results to the outcomes of patients who underwent the repair of vertical meniscus tears with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The hypothesis was that radial and vertical meniscus tear repair outcomes were comparable. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who underwent 2-tunnel transtibial pullout repair for a radial meniscus tear were included in this study and compared with patients who underwent inside-out repair for a vertical meniscus tear. Subjective questionnaires were administered preoperatively and at a minimum of 2-year follow-up, including the Lysholm score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical component summary (PCS), the Tegner activity scale, and patient satisfaction. Analysis of covariance was used to compare postoperative outcome scores between the meniscus repair groups while accounting for baseline scores. Adjusted mean effects relative to the radial repair group were reported with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients who underwent 2-tunnel transtibial pullout repair for radial meniscus tears and 33 patients who underwent inside-out repair for vertical meniscus tears were available for follow-up at a mean of 3.5 years (range, 2.0-5.4 years). No preoperative outcome score significantly differed between the groups. There were no significant group differences for any of the 2-year postoperative outcome scores. Relative to the vertical repair group, the radial repair group exhibited an adjusted mean of -0.2 (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.9), -0.6 (95% CI, -6.6 to 5.5), and 5.1 (95% CI, -3.9 to 14.0) points on the SF-12 PCS, WOMAC, and Lysholm scores, respectively. CONCLUSION: The 2-tunnel transtibial pullout technique for the repair of radial meniscus tears produces similar clinical outcomes when compared with the repair of vertical meniscus tears at a mean 3.5 years' follow-up.

Readability of Online Sources Regarding Meniscal Tears.

Meniscal injuries are extremely common, with an incidence of 8.3 per 1,000 person/years in young, active individuals. Patients often turn to the internet to glean information about their injuries, and even to guide decision making about treatment. Much research has been done demonstrating that a reading level of eighth grade or lower is appropriate for accurately communicating written information to patients, yet medical practitioners often fail to meet this requirement. To better examine the information patients receive about meniscal injuries, we set out to evaluate the reading level and content of three commonly used search terms on the three search engines with the largest market share. The authors examined the keywords "meniscus tear," "meniscus tear treatment," and "knee pain meniscus" on the three highest market share search engines. The top 10 results from each search were included, and redundancies identified. Unique Web sites were evaluated for source, word count, reading level, and content including advertisements, diagrams, photographs, nonoperative and operative options, and accurate medical information. A total of 23 unique Web sites were identified in our search, including 13 public education sources, 6 academic institutions, and 4 private physicians/groups. Average grade levels of articles ranged from 9.4 to 14.2 (mean, 11.14; standard deviation [SD] 1.46), and Flesch-Kincaid reading ease scores ranged from 23.9 to 68.7 (mean, 55.31; SD, 10.11). Pages from public sources required the highest level of readability (11.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.8-13.2), which was significantly higher than private (11.0, 95% CI: 9.3, 12.7]) and academic (10.9, 95% CI: 8.9-12.9), p = 0.007 and p = 0.002, respectively. Further efforts to make appropriate health information available to patients are needed.