Clinical Outcomes of Different Management Techniques for Medial Meniscal Type 3 Ramp Lesions in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparative Analysis Between All-inside Repair, Suture Hook Repair, and Lesions Left In Situ.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate about the best way to manage ramp lesions at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). Type 3 lesions are not visible by the transnotch approach without superior debridement, making the management debate even more problematic.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of secondary surgical interventions according to the management method of a type 3 ramp lesion concomitant with primary ACLR. The hypothesis was that the rate of secondary ACL or meniscal interventions would be higher in patients who underwent all-inside repair.

STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent primary ACLR with a type 3 ramp lesion between January 2012 and May 2020, regardless of the treatment method, was performed. The main criterion analyzed in this cohort was a secondary surgical intervention, defined as revision ACLR or a reintervention of the repaired meniscus. A survivorship analysis was performed to evaluate secondary surgical interventions in 3 groups: all-inside repair, suture hook repair, and left in situ. The following data were collected preoperatively and at the last follow-up: patient characteristics, time to surgery, side-to-side difference in laxity, pivot shift, Lysholm score, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Tegner score, and meniscal repair failure rate.

RESULTS: A total of 113 patients who underwent type 3 ramp lesion repair concomitant with ACLR were included: 52 (46.0%) in the all-inside repair group, 23 (20.4%) in the suture hook repair group, and 38 (33.6%) in the lesion left in situ group. There were 17 patients (15.0%) who underwent a secondary intervention because of ACL graft failure (n = 6) or meniscal repair failure (n = 15 [4 of whom underwent a concomitant ACL reintervention]). Overall, 62 patients (54.9%) underwent combined ACLR and anterolateral ligament reconstruction, while 51 patients (45.1%) underwent isolated ACLR. In the adjusted Cox model, the type of meniscal repair was not statistically significantly associated with secondary surgical interventions. The only risk factor for secondary surgical interventions in this cohort was isolated ACLR (hazard ratio, 8.077; P = .007).

CONCLUSION: The rates of secondary surgical interventions after medial meniscal type 3 ramp lesion repair concomitant with ACLR were similar regardless of the management method of the meniscal lesion. Despite not being associated with meniscal treatment, this rate was 8 times higher for patients who underwent isolated ACLR in this cohort; this is probably because of the protection that lateral extra-articular procedures provide to the ACL graft.