The current understanding of the biomechanical role of the meniscus, in conjunction with the increasing efforts to achieve its preservation within the orthopaedic community during treatment of meniscal lesions, has prompted the development of different meniscal repair techniques. The outside-in technique is recommended for anterior horn and middle-segment meniscal tears and has been recognized as a low-cost procedure with a low incidence of complications. Diverse modifications of this technique have been published over the past decade. On the basis of these previous outside-in technique modifications and aiming to simplify and reduce the number of surgical steps, as well as simplify suture and/or instrument manipulation, during this technique, we describe the single–lasso loop outside-in technique for meniscal repair. We believe this modified technique represents a simplified, economic, and highly reproducible procedure option whenever an outside-in technique for meniscal repair is considered.

No abstract

Objectives:To compare clinical and radiological results of two types of rotator cuff (RC) repairs: the double row and double row-suture bridge. Methods: Forty-two patients with a complete tear (medium and large size) of the RC were repaired by a double row arthroscopic technique. Minimum follow-up was 19 months (range, 19-28 months). Clinical outcomes were assessed by the Modified Constant Scale and satisfaction rate by an independent observer; VAS, UCLA and ASES. Radiological results were assed by a postoperative MRI by a musculoskeletal radiologist. Results: Series of 22 patients in the double row technique (Group A) and 20 patients in the double-row suture bridge (Gruop B). Statistically there was a significant improvement in the Constant Scale, satisfaction rate, muscle assessment, VAS, UCLA and ASES in both groups after the surgical procedure. There were no significant clinical differences between both groups at any time after the surgical procedure. According to MRI postop, 19/22 shoulders in Group A and 18/20 in Group B remained intact, with no significant differences between the two groups Conclusion: RC repairs with double row and double-row-suture bridge techniques provide clinical and radiological good and excelent results. In our retrospective, mid-size study, we have found no differences between these two repair techniques.

Objectives:To present our functional outcomes from patients treated arthroscopically for a failed Bankart repair, using suture anchors and capsulolabral tissue only.Methods:Series of 22 patients presented with a recurrence of instability after a previous stabilization surgery (3 Latarjet, Bankart 19). We treated them by a an all-arthroscopic procedure, avoiding bone grafts, when glenoid track was found to be enough to proceed. The failure was associated with trauma in 11 patients, a non-anatomic repair in 6 patients, capsular laxity in 4 patients and a non-union of the coracoid graft in 1 patient. Revision surgery included: Bankart repair with anchors in 17 cases, a posterior-inferior capsulo-labral plication in one case, and 5 remplissages. In 4 cases subscapularis augmentation was used because of poor capsular quality. Screw removal was necessary when treating the non-union case. Patients were followed-up by a minimum of 23 months (range 23-26), and evaluated by the UCLA Test, SS test and Rowe score.Results:Thirteen patients had an excellent result, 6 good, 2 satisfactory and one bad result, according to UCLA score. The mean Rowe score was 90.4, at final follow up. The Simple Shoulder Test went from an 8 preoperative to an 11 postoperative, mean scores. 19 of 22 patients returned to the same level of activity prior to the injury. Complications: recurrence in 2 cases, subluxation in 2 and one shoulder stiffness that required an arthrolysis.Conclusion:An arthroscopic revision surgery, after a failed Bankart repair, presents satisfactory results in selected patients. Arthroscopic vision allows a correct diagnosis of injuries as possible causes of failure and subsequent treatment.