Mohammad Ali Hossein Nezhad¹ and Amir Mohammad Navali²

¹Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

²Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shahid Gazi Hospital, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

Corresponding Author E-mail: Amir_navali@yahoo.com

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/1092

Abstract

One of the reasons for using sub-meniscal sutures is to prevent scratching the femoral condyle cartilage. The aim of this study is to investigate the mid-term results in patients treated with this technique. 90 patients with meniscal tear with or without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear were studied from 2012 to 2016. They had, at least, two years passed from their meniscus repair surgery and all treated with arthroscopic method and horizontal and sub-meniscal repair technique. Tegner-Lysholm test, IKDC, and Tegner activity test were used for clinical evaluation. Clinical success was investigated through the absence of joint line tenderness, knee locking, and negative Mac-Murray test. The interval of the trauma to the repair surgery was compared in different age and weight groups. Follow-up period was 38/4 ± 8/2 months (24-58). After surgery, Tegner-Lyshholm and IKDC score improved significantly (p <0.001). Tegner-Lyshholm increased from 48/03 to 93/64 and IKDC increased from 37/18 to 91/92. Tegner activity score also significantly increased from 3.4 at the time of the damage to 5/06 after surgery (p <0.001). According to the results of Mac-Nemar test, joint swelling, joint line tenderness, and knee locking were also decreased significantly after the surgery (p <0.001). The results of the study were affected by the BMI less than 25, trauma to repair surgery interval less than 12 months, and the concurrent ACL repair. The use of horizontal Sub-meniscal technique in repairing the meniscus tears has clinically acceptable results. This technique is simple and it prevents the damage to the cartilage caused by suture and implant materials.

Keywords

Meniscus; Repair; Suturing technique

Download this article as: 

Copy the following to cite this article: Nezhad M. A. H, Navali A. M. Mid-Term Results of the Meniscus Repair using Horizontal Sub-Meniscal Sutures Summary. Biomed Pharmacol J 2017;10(1).

Copy the following to cite this URL: Nezhad M. A. H, Navali A. M. Mid-Term Results of the Meniscus Repair using Horizontal Sub-Meniscal Sutures Summary. Biomed Pharmacol J 2017;10(1). Available from: http://biomedpharmajournal.org/?p=14145

Introduction

A technical problem during the repair of the meniscus is placing sutures in very posterior meniscus area. Horizontal Sub-meniscal sutures provide acceptable technique to overcome this problem and to access this portion of the meniscus with no additional cutting. Another problem with meniscal repair is the articular cartilage wear and Synovia caused by the repair materials. Parts of the implants pushed out of the meniscus can wear articular cartilage in the contact parts and produce chronic synovitis (37, 38, and 39). Morgan et al. concluded that clinical examination is a reliable way to evaluate the success of the meniscus treatment and re-arthroscopy takes no precedence over it (31).

Femoral condyle cartilage may be scratched by sutures placed above the meniscus during weight-bearing or joint movements (23). One reason for the use of sub-meniscal sutures is to prevent this potential threat.

There has not been a study to examine the repair method using the sub-meniscal technique. In this study, for the first time, we study the mid-term results in patients treated with this technique.

Materials and Methods

In this study, 90 patients were studied from 1391 to 1394. They all had been admitted to Ghazi Hospital of Medical Sciences of Tabriz with meniscus tear (with or without ACL tear) because of sports injuries and had at least two years passed of their meniscus surgery. (Surgery dates were from Farvardin 1389 to Esfand 1393). The patients entered into the study meeting the entry conditions and their medical records were extracted from the archive. The initial diagnosis in all patients was based on MRI. Clinical examinations have been performed and recorded by the main surgeon (Dr. Amir Mohammad Nawali) before surgery, during follow-up, and after 2-year follow-up. All patients treated by arthroscopic method using horizontal and sub-meniscal technique of meniscus repair. In some cases where cruciate ligament repair has been required, arthroscopic treatment has been used.

Before surgery, for all patients evaluation forms of IKDC and Lysholm / Tegner were completed and entered into the record along with the patient history sheet. In the record, the cause of the tear and trauma, the elapsed time of the injury, the type of tear, its extent and location have been recorded. Cases that also had simultaneous ACL tear were recorded separately. And those that exist simultaneously. Clinical criteria decided whether the treatment failed or not (after a 2-year follow-up period) and re-MRI or re-arthroscopy were not used to evaluate the success or failure of the treatment.

The Conditions to Enter into the Study

The conditions of the entry into this study include those who:

Suffer longitudinal vertical tear of meniscus in the red – red and white-red regions because of sporting or non-sporting trauma that are capable of repairing. (Verticality and the place of the tears are determined by pre-surgery MRI images and reparability is determined during arthroscopy and based on the criteria stipulated in authentic orthopedic books for reparability of the meniscus (18)).

The informed consent of the individuals to participate in this study.

Timely referral for follow-up treatment

Exclusion Criteria

The lack of meniscus repair

The lack of fracture at lower body parts of patients

The absence of congenital abnormalities in organs

The total number of 109 patients had been operated by using horizontal sub-meniscal technique to repair torn meniscus from 1387 to 1392. 90 patients whose two-year follow-up ended during the period 1391 to Esfand 1394 were included in the study and 19 patients excluded from the study for, at least, one of the aforementioned reasons.

Full Explanation of the Method and Technique of the Surgery

After diagnostic arthroscopy, the morphology and pattern of meniscal tear and tear area are determined and if there is locked bucket handle tear, it will be fixed. Edges of the tear is freshened by meniscus rasp and various perforations is created by a needle at the edge of the meniscus in order to create bleeding and small vascular channels. After determining the best point for the entry, a small skin incision is created and a threaded cannula with a PDS No 1 suture is passed the capsule and the tear and brought out of the bottom surface of the meniscus. We continued to cross the suture until the head of the suture is seen in the joint. The free end of the suture through the arthroscopic anteromedial portal brought out by using grasp. The second threaded cannula is passed the same incision with a 0-2 loop nylon suture and brought out of the button surface of the meniscus. All process is done carefully to avoid scratching the articular cartilage of the Tibia. Outside of the knee, free PDS is passed the loop suture. Pulling the loop suture from the entry point returns the free PDS into the joint and removed it from the skin. Loose ends of PDS are tied together with 5 or 6 simple knots. Considering the size of the tear, two to six sutures are created parallel to the joint line at the same way.

After the operation, patients use a hinged knee brace for six weeks. Joint range of motion using a brace for two weeks was between 0-7 degrees with relative weight bearing. Then, another two weeks was between zero and ninety degrees. Gradually, it reached the full range of motion in the eight weeks after the surgery and full weight-baring in the ten weeks. Follow-up period for each patient was at least two years.

The results of the repair were also compared separately in different age and weight groups and also in different groups regarding the interval of the trauma to the surgery.

The rate of recovery (increase in score) was determined after calling patients back and taking physical examination and history. In these cases, range of motion and stability of the knee and meniscus tests were investigated and recorded. Also, the time interval to do normal activities and exercise, pain and possible complications (such as infection, deep vein thrombosis and wound dehiscence) and the cases of the failure and of requiring re-treatment were investigated.

Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed using SPSS software. Quantitative data were shown as mean and standard deviation and qualitative data were shown as frequency and percentage. To compare quantitative data, T-test (Independent samples, Paired samples) and ANOVA were used and to compare qualitative data, chi-square test or McNemar test and Sign test were used. In all cases, p<0/05 was considered as significant.

Results

In this study, 90 patients with meniscal tear with or without tears in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) were studied. The gender distribution included 86 males (95/6%) and 4 females (4/4%) (Table 1). Also, 70 patients (77.8%) had ACL tear and 20 patients lacked ACL tear (22.2%). All the cases with ACL tear were treated arthroscopically along with meniscus repair.

Table 1: Comparing demographic results of the study

		Male	Female
Gender		(%6/95) 86	(%4/4) 4
ACL condition		Repair	No repair
		(%8/77) 70	(%2/22) 20
		No	Yes
Arthritis before the meniscal repair surgery		(%7/26) 24	(%3/73) 66
Arthritis after the meniscal repair surgery		(%7/96) 87	(%3/3) 3
joint line tenderness before surgery		(%3/3) 3	(%7/96) 87
joint line tenderness after surgery		(%4/44) 40	(%6/55) 50
Knee locking before surgery		(%9/8) 8	(%1/91) 82
Knee locking after surgery		(%7/86)78	(%3/13) 12
The number of meniscus sutures	1	2	3	4 and more
	(%9/8) 8	(%2/22) 20	(%4/44) 40	(%2/22) 22
Patient age	Under 20	21-40	Above 41
	(%2/2) 2	(%1/91) 82	(%7/6) 6
Time length between the injury and treatment(month)	Under3	4 to 6	12-Jul	Above 13
	(%1/31) 28	(%7/6) 6	(%3/23) 21	(%9/38) 35
Body mass status	Under 20	20/01-25	25/01-30	30/01 & more
	(%3/3) 3	(%3/33) 30	(%9/48) 44	(%4/14) 13

Based on the results of the McNemar test, joint inflation rate decreased from 66 (73/3%) before the surgery to 3 (3/3%) after the surgery, the joint line tenderness decreased from 87 (96/7%) to 50 (55/6) and the locking of the knee from 82 (91/1%) to 12 (13/3%). These show a significant decrease (p <0.05).

Table 2: parameters assessed in the Tegner questionnaire in various stages of meniscus repair

Tegner questionnaire score about the level of activity	Before injury	After injury and before surgery	After surgery
Mean ± standard error	c 17/0±28/6	a 14/0±51/1	b 16/0±067/5
Significance	001/0
Tegner test score deference in the time between the knee injury and treatment (months)	After surgery compared to before surgery	After surgery compared to the time of the injury	In the time of the injury compared to before injury
Under 3	29/0±10/1-	ab 34/0±67/3	40/0±78/4-
6-Apr	49/0±66/0-	b 81/0±00/5	61/0±66/5-
12-Jul	30/0±71/0-	ab 37/0±19/4	37/0±90/4-
More than 13	37/0±71/1-	a 24/0±82/2	33/0±54/4-
Significance	178/0	004/0	607/
Tegner test score deference in the time between the knee injury and treatment (months)	After surgery compared to before surgery	After surgery compared to the time of the injury	In the time of the injury compared to before injury
Under 12	19/0±90/0-	24/0±01/4	25/0±92/4-
More than 12	37/0±71/1-	24/0±82/2	33/0±54/4-
Significance	039/0	002/0	361/0
Tegner test score in BMI	After surgery compared to before surgery	After surgery compared to the time of the injury	In the time of the injury compared to before injury
Less than 30	24/0±35/1-	22/0±64/3	25/0±00/5-
More than 31	28/0±96/0-	33/0±38/3	33/0±35/4-
Significance	336/0	517/0	134/0
Tegner test score in BMI	After surgery compared to before surgery	After surgery compared to the time of the injury	In the time of the injury compared to before injury
Less than 25	33/0±00/1-	*b 34/0±97/3	41/0±97/4-
01/25 – 00/30	26/0±34/1-	ab 25/0±54/3	24/0±88/4-
More than 30/01	52/0±38/1-	a 35/0±53/2	38/0±92/3-
Significance	678/0	046/0	225/0
Tegner test score deference in ACL tear	After surgery compared to before surgery	After surgery compared to the time of the injury	In the time of the injury compared to before injury
Repair	23/0±50/1-	19/0±57/3	21/0±07/5-
No repair	14/0±25/0-	48/0±50/3	45/0±75/3-
Significance	006/0	875/0	006/0
Tegner test score in ACL tear	Before the injury	After the injury and before the surgery	After the surgery
Repair	20/0±47/6	14/0±40/1	19/0±97/4
No repair	30/0±65/5	39/0±90/1	31/0±40/5
Significance	049/0	153/0	287/0
Tegner test score in knee locking before surgery	Before meniscal injury	After the injury and before the surgery	After the surgery
Absence	56/0±62/7	41/0±25/1	66/0±87/5
Presence	17/0±15/6	15/0±53/1	16/0±98/4
Significance	016/0	577/0	130/0
Tegner test score deference in knee locking before surgery	After surgery compared to before surgery	After surgery compared to the time of the injury	In the time of the injury compared to before injury
Absence	64/0±75/1-	73/0±62/4	56/0±37/6-
Presence	20/0±17/1-	19/0±45/3	21/0±62/4-
Significance	391/0	074/0	014/0

In the Tegner questionnaire score about the level of activity, there is a significant difference among all groups of “interval between injury and surgery”. After the meniscus repair, despite an improvement in the questionnaire score compared to before the meniscus injury, there is a significant difference (p <0.05). Tegner questionnaire score deference after the surgery compared to the time of the injury had the highest level at the time interval 4 to 6 months and it had the lowest level at the time interval of “more than 13 month”. Also, the rate of repair in cases with “less than 12 months” was significantly better than repair in cases with “more than 12 months”.

Based on the results, best results with statistically significant differences was obtained in the group with BMI less than 25 comparing “after surgery to the time of the injury” (p> 0.05). Tegner test score deference in the ACL tear showed that the condition of the meniscus repair was significantly better in the group with ACL compared to the group without ACL (i.e. isolated meniscus damage) comparing after surgery to before surgery.

Table 3: Assessed parameters in Tegner-Lysholm and IKDC questionnaires in various stages of meniscus repair

Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score		Before surgery			After surgery
Mean ± standard error		88/1±03/48			91/0±64/93
Significance		001/0
IKDC questionnaire score		Before surgery			After surgery
Mean ± standard error		04/2±18/37			94/0±92/91
Significance		001/0
Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score difference between knee injury and treatment (months)		After surgery compared to before surgery			IKDC questionnaire score difference between knee injury and treatment (months)		After surgery compared to before surgery
Less than 3		72/4±75/47			Less than 3		71/4±44/62
4 to 6		83/6±50/28			4 to 6		93/10±75/42
7 to 12		62/4±90/46			7 to 12		04/5±19/52
More than 13		86/2±05/46			More than 13		59/2±17/52
Significance		222/0			Significance		104/
Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score difference between knee injury and treatment (months)		After surgery compared to before surgery			IKDC questionnaire score difference between knee injury and treatment (months)		After surgery compared to before surgery
Less than 12		13/3±32/45			Less than 12		36/3±38/56
More than 12		86/2±05/46			More than 12		59/2±17/52
Significance		873/0			Significance		374/0
Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score difference in BMI		After surgery compared to before surgery			IKDC questionnaire score difference in BMI		After surgery compared to before surgery
Less than 30		81/2±91/45			Less than 30		87/2±10/55
More than 31		55/3±03/45			More than 31		83/3±05/54
Significance		850/0			Significance		828/0
Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score difference in BMI		After surgery compared to before surgery			IKDC questionnaire score difference in BMI		After surgery compared to before surgery
Less than 25		70/3±21/48			Less than 25		21/4±47/54
25/01 to 30/00		18/3±27/45			25/01 to 30/00		24/3±59/55
More than 30/01		40/5±15/40			More than 30/01		62/4±58/52
Significance		500/0			Significance		907/0
Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score difference in ACL tear		After surgery compared to before surgery			IKDC questionnaire score difference in ACL tear		After surgery compared to before surgery
Repair		36/2±81/45			Repair		26/2±31/56
No repair		60/5±90/44			No repair		58/6±24/49
Significance		864/0			Significance		201/0
Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score in ACL tear	Before meniscus repair surgery		After meniscus repair surgery	IKDC questionnaire score in ACL tear		Before meniscus repair surgery		After meniscus repair surgery
Repair	01/2±81/47		08/1±62/93	Edit		18/2±22/36		00/1±54/92
No repair	79/4±80/48		58/1±70/93	Budaun Edit		14/5±53/40		32/2±77/89
Significance	829/0		974/0	Significance		383/0		223/0
Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score in knee locking before surgery	Before meniscus repair surgery		After meniscus repair surgery	IKDC questionnaire score in knee locking before surgery		Before meniscus repair surgery		After meniscus repair surgery
Absence	10/4±25/54		41/1±75/95	Absence		98/4±16/42		46/2±82/92
Presence	01/2±42/47		98/0±43/93	Presence		18/2±69/36		00/1±84/91
Significance	304/0		474/0	Significance		449/0		768/0
Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score deference in knee locking before surgery		Before meniscus injury			IKDC questionnaire score deference in knee locking before surgery		After the meniscus repair surgery
Absence		35/4±50/41			Absence		09/5±66/50
Presence		38/2±01/46			Presence		46/2±14/55
Significance		563/0			Significance		581/0

Tegner-Lysholm and IKDC questionnaires’ score increased significantly after surgery (p <0.01). The Tegner-Lysholm and IKDC questionnaires’ score differences had no significant deference after surgery than before surgery in deferent time intervals to the treatment and deferent BMI’s, in ACL tear with or without repair and knee locking before the surgery.

Discussion and Conclusion

Meniscus tear is usually is created by a combination of mechanical forces with or without prior meniscus injuries (such as degeneration and etc.). If there is previous injury, the tear may be less traumatic. Different types of treatment are used for meniscus tear. Today, repair methods are the most preferred one. Success of the repair is dependent on many factors. According to some researchers, meniscus is considered repaired when the effusion and tenderness in the joint space are fixed and McMurray’s test result is negative. If one or several of these factor are still standing, or minor factors reoccur, or further surgery is needed, the repair is not successful. Some researchers also consider the following as the cases of successful treatment; little pain or tenderness or lack of it, lack of Locking, emptiness below the knee and significant inflation in the knee, and no need to re-surgery.

The meniscus function in weight bearing, energy absorption and joint stability and creating articular surface homogeneity is remarkable. Several therapeutic techniques are available, but it seems that repair by suture have the largest biomechanical stability (8). Methods of treatment for meniscal tear or damage include Meniscectomy (total or partial) or meniscus repair as open and arthroscopic inside out, inside out, all inside (26).

Basically, suturing technique is effective on the suture tolerance against the exerted forces. Some sources confirmed that tensile strength in vertical loop technique is about 115 Newton and in the horizontal suture is about 75 Newton. In another study, the strength in sutures with Single Vertical Loop technique is 63 Newton and for horizontal sutures is 29 N (6). It should be noted that these are in vitro studies and applied force is based on stretch that is much different from humans. Horizontal suture technique described in 1995 by Johnson and Mulberry technique first described in 1990 by Cooper. Both are used in the in-out and out-in cases (17). Considering the strength, vertical suture is usually considered as the gold standard and according to different types, vertical suture strength has been estimated around 60-200 (13,33).

Horizontal sutures are placed between peripheral fiber bundles and fail with less force because inside the fibers the force is so that horizontal sutures, during periodic testing, have similar structure in comparison with vertical sutures and may have useful characteristics of each category i.e. vertical (greater biomechanical strength) and horizontal (simplicity, longer suture with the desire to cover a larger area of meniscus tissue) (25).

However, the clinical success rate does not correlate well with the mechanical strength of repair techniques and available information does not indicate that stronger repairs are associated with better results (39)

A technical problem during the meniscus repair is placing the sutures in the very posterior area of meniscus. Horizontal Sub-meniscal sutures provide acceptable technique to overcome this problem and to access this portion of the meniscus with no additional cutting. Another problem with meniscal repair is the articular cartilage wear and Synovia caused by the repair materials. Parts of the implants pushed out of the meniscus can wear articular cartilage in the contact parts and produce chronic synovitis (37, 38, and 39). Morgan et al. concluded that clinical examination is a reliable way to evaluate the success of the meniscus treatment and re-arthroscopy takes no precedence over it (31).

Femoral condyle cartilage may be scratched by sutures placed above the meniscus during weight-bearing or joint movements (23). One reason for the use of sub-meniscal sutures is to prevent this potential threat.

According to the researchers, in the cases that the meniscus repair is associated with reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament, better results have been achieved (11, 42, 15, 1, 9,31). Also, the repair at an earlier age and with little time interval from the onset of clinical signs has led to better results. In some studies it has reported 6 weeks (41), 8 weeks (19,21), and within 3 months (42). Also, if you refresh the site of the tear and use sutures instead of absorbable or hybrid things, the results will be better. According to the results of this study and based on the Tegner Lysholm and IKCD questionnaires’ score difference, the repair rate has produced better results  in the cases under three months and also in the period under 12 months.

According to the results of this study, repair rate based on Tegner questionnaire score about the level of activity after the surgery was 5/067 ± 0/16 that is statistically significant compared to the “damage time’ that was 1/51 ± 0/14 (p <0.05). Also, 4 to 6 months after surgery compared to the time of the injury Tegner questionnaire scores was 5/00 ± 0/81 and it was significantly different from cases who treated after 13 months (p <0.05) .

Based on Tegner-Lysholm and IKDC questionnaires score difference after surgery compared to before surgery, the difference between the scores of both questionnaires had no significant differences between the month under the comparison. It had highest rate at less than 3 month and lowest rate at 4-6 month.

In a study conducted by Asike and et al (6) in Turkey in 2002, 61 patients were studied. They were operated for meniscal repair for unstable vertical and longitudinal tear larger than one centimeter. 43 patients were male and 18 were female with an average age of 26 years and age gap of 17 to 22 years. In 47 patients, in addition to the damage to the meniscus, there was anterior cruciate ligament tear. Result in 14 patients was excellent and in other cases was fair. All patients after six months had the ability to return to sports activities.

In this study, 70 cases (77/8%) had ACL tear and repair and in 20 cases (22/2%) there was no need for the repair. 66 cases (73/3%) had joint swelling before surgery that reduced to 3(3/3%) after repair. 87 cases (96/7%) had joint line tenderness before surgery that reduced to 50 cases (55/6%) after repair. Knee locking reduced from 82(91/1%) to 12 (13/3%). According to the results, meniscus repair surgery with horizontal sub-meniscal method have good results.

Fantasia and et al (17) in 2012 studied the tensile strength of sutures in laboratory environments. They studied 55 meniscus tear with 1/5 cm length. The results show high tensile strength of mulberry techniques compared to horizontal method. Strength of Mulberry method sutures was about 30 Newton. In Fok and yau study (18), the preliminary results of all inside meniscal repair using anchor sutures have been studied. This study conducted on 51 patients with a mean age of 26 and on 57 meniscus from 2008 to 2010. Meniscus repair method is evaluated by preloaded suture anchor method. Significant improvement was observed in patients, especially in cases where there was ACL tear. Simultaneous repair had increased the function in patients. There was statistically significant difference in these cases.

There are many differences in reports on the results of meniscal repair using arthroscopy method. Morgan and Kaslz reported 98/6 percent clinical success rate (30). Albrecht-Olsen and Bak reported 10 failure out of 27 repairs that success rate was 63% (2). Most long-term studies have reported 70 to 80 percent clinical success (7, 22, 14).

According to reports, results of the meniscus repair in the knee without anterior cruciate ligament is better when the ligament is also repaired simultaneously 18-20. Good results (71% success) have been reported in the treatment of medial meniscus and ACL ligament (42). It seems that hemarthrosis created during ACL repair stimulates serum factors that will help to improve the meniscus. In addition, meniscus repair protects abnormal shear stress caused by joint stability increasing (42).

According to this study, Tegner questionnaire score difference (level of activity) after surgery compared to the time of the damage was 3/57 ± 0/19 and was higher than the group without ACL repair (3/50 ± 0/48). However, the difference was not statistically significant.

Also, Tegner-Lysholm and IKDC questionnaires’ score difference in the repair group of ACL was more than the group without repair, but this difference was not significant. However, after surgery Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score in ACL repair group was less than that in group without repair. IKDC questionnaire score in ACL repair group was higher than the group without repair. According to findings, Tegnr- Lysholm and IKDC questionnaires’ score increased significantly than before surgery. It reflects the positive effects of treatment on patients.

Meniscus creates compliance and stability in the knee through distributing the pressure inside the knee joint and it works as shock absorber. It also decreases the pressure transmitted through joint cartilage and subchondral bone (20, 34, 5, 32). It seems that meniscus transmits a little over half of the pressure caused by the weight to the knee joint (27). So, a biomechanical mechanism may be considered for the association between meniscal damage and BMI. With increasing BMI, traction and torque increase in the knee during the spin and theoretically increases the likelihood of damage to the meniscus. However, other involved mechanisms such as decreased blood flow to the meniscus (12, 40, 4, 3, 20) or low-grade inflammation associated with obesity (29) are not very clear. In obese individuals, the blood supply to the meniscus will be limited due to mechanical impact of weight on the vessels or cardiovascular risk factors. The blood supply has also an important role in the healing of meniscal tear (4, 3, 20, 24).

According to the results of this study and comparing Tegner test score difference and comparing Tegner-Lysholm and IKDC test score difference, the repair after surgery compared to the injury time in the group with BMI less than 30 was better than the group with BMI above 31. Comparing individuals with BMI less than 25, 25.1 to 30, and more than 30/01 showed that in terms of the difference of activity level test of Tegner and Tegner-Lysholm questionnaire score difference after surgery compared to damage time the best repair rate was in the group of patients with BMI below 25/00. The results of this study are consistent with previous studies.

The results of the study showed that meniscal repair using horizontal sub-meniscal suture method has been successful in the treatment of meniscus tear and it has the similar results of other treatment methods.

References

1. Adams Jr, S. B., Peretti, G. M., Weinand, C., Randolph, M. A. and Gill, T. J. Meniscal Repair: Current Strategies and the Future of Tissue Engineering. Ortho jour Harvard med sch. 2003Apr. 5: 138-141.
2. Albrecht-Olsen, P. M. and Bak, K. (1993). Arthroscopic Repair of the Bucket-Handle Meniscus: 10 Failures in 27 Stable Knees Followed for 3 Years. Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica. 64: 446-448.
3. Arnoczky, S. P. and Warren, R. F. (1982). Microvasculature of the Human Meniscus. The American journal of sports medicine. 10: 90-95.
4. Arnoczky, S. P. and Warren, R. F. (1983). The Microvasculature of the Meniscus and Its Response to Injury an Experimental Study in the Dog. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 11: 131-141.
5. Asahina, S., Muneta, T. and Yamamoto, H. (1996). Arthoscopic Meniscal Repair in Conjunction with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Factors Affecting the Healing Rate. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 12: 541-545.
6. Asik, M., Sen, C., Taser, O. F., Sozen, Y. V. and Alturfan, A. K. (2002). Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair with the Use of Conventional Suturing Materials. Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica. 36: 228-235.
7. Barber, F. A. (1987). Meniscus Repair: Results of an Arthroscopic Technique. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 3: 25-30.
8. Barber, F. A., Herbert, M. A. and Richards, D. P. (2004). Load to Failure Testing of New Meniscal Repair Devices. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 20: 45-50.
9. Barber, F. A., Johnson, D. H. and Halbrecht, J. L. (2005). Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair Using the Biostinger. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 21: 744-750.
10. Barrett, G. R. (1998). Clinical Results of Meniscus Repair in Patients 40 Years and Older. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 14: 824-829.
11. Cannon, W. D. and Vittori, J. M. (1992). The Incidence of Healing in Arthroscopic Meniscal Repairs in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knees Versus Stable Knees. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 20: 176-181.
12. Chan, P. (1998). Identification of the Vascular and Avascular Zones of the Human Meniscus Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Correlation with Histology. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 14: 820-823.
13. Dervin, G. F., Downing, K. J., Keene, G. C. and Mcbride, D. G. (1997). Failure Strengths of Suture Versus Biodegradable Arrow for Meniscal Repair: An in Vitro Study. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 13: 296-300.
14. Eggli, S., Wegmüller, H., Kosina, J., Huckell, C. and Jakob, R. P. (1995). Long-Term Results of Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair an Analysis of Isolated Tears. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 23: 715-720.
15. El Shewy, M. T. (2004). Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair Using Vertical Sutures: A Simple, Safe and Efficient Procedure. Pan Arab Ortho Asso Jour. 8: 23-30.
16. Englund, M. and Lohmander, L. (2004). Risk Factors for Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis Fifteen to Twenty‐Two Years after Meniscectomy. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 50: 2811-2819.
17. Fantasia, F., Potalivo, G., Placella, G., Fantasia, L. and Cerulli, G. (2012). Meniscal Sutures: Biomechanical Study of “Mulberry” and Horizontal Loop Techniques. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 13: 13-19.
18. Fok, W. M. and Yau, W. P. (2013). Early Results of All-inside Meniscal Repairs Using a Pre-Loaded Suture Anchor. Hong Kong Med J. 19: 124-128.
19. Hamberg, P., Gillquist, J. and Lysholm, J. (1983). Suture of New and Old Peripheral Meniscus Tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 65: 193-197.
20. Hauger, O., Frank, L. R., Boutin, R. D., Lektrakul, N., Chung, C. B., Haghighi, P. and Resnick, D. (2000). Characterization of the “Red Zone” of Knee Meniscus: Mr Imaging and Histologic Correlation 1. Radiology. 217: 193-200.
21. Jakob, R., Stäubli, H., Zuber, K. and Esser, M. (1988). The Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair Techniques and Clinical Experience. The American journal of sports medicine. 16: 137-142.
22. Johnson, M. J., Lucas, G. L., Dusek, J. K. and Henning, C. E. (1999). Isolated Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair: A Long-Term Outcome Study (More Than 10 Years). The American journal of sports medicine. 27: 44-49.
23. Kelly, J. D. and Ebrahimpour, P. (2004). Chondral Injury and Synovitis after Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair Using an Outside-in Mulberry Knot Suture Technique. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 20: e49-e52.
24. King, D. and Niebauer, J. J. (1990). The Healing of Semilunar Cartilages. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 252: 4-7.
25. Kocabey, Y., Taser, O., Nyland, J., Doral, M. N., Demirhan, M., Caborn, D. N. and Sarban, S. (2006). Pullout Strength of Meniscal Repair after Cyclic Loading: Comparison of Vertical, Horizontal, and Oblique Suture Techniques. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 14: 998-1003.
26. Konan, S. and Haddad, F. S. (2010). Outcomes of Meniscal Preservation Using All-inside Meniscus Repair Devices. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 468: 1209-1213.
27. Kurosawa, H., Fukubayashi, T. and Nakajima, H. (1980). Load-Bearing Mode of the Knee Joint: Physical Behavior of the Knee Joint with or without Menisci. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 149: 283-290.
28. Maffulli, N., Longo, U. G., Campi, S. and Denaro, V. (2010). Meniscal Tears. Open Access J Sports Med. 1: 45-54.
29. Messier, S. P., Loeser, R. F., Mitchell, M. N., Valle, G., Morgan, T. P., Rejeski, W. J. and Ettinger, W. H. (2000). Exercise and Weight Loss in Obese Older Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Preliminary Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 48: 1062-1072.
30. Morgan, C. D. and Casscells, S. W. (1986). Arthroscopic Meniscus Repair: A Safe Approach to the Posterior Horns. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2: 3-12.
31. Morgan, C. D., Wojtys, E. M., Casscells, C. D. and Casscells, S. W. (1991). Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair Evaluated by Second-Look Arthroscopy. The American journal of sports medicine. 19: 632-638.
32. O’meara, P. (1993). The Basic Science of Meniscus Repair. Orthopaedic review. 22: 681-686.
33. Rankin, C. C., Lintner, D. M., Noble, P. C., Paravic, V. and Greer, E. (2002). A Biomechanical Analysis of Meniscal Repair Techniques. The American journal of sports medicine. 30: 492-497.
34. Renström, P. and Johnson, R. (1990). Anatomy and Biomechanics of the Menisci. Clinics in sports medicine. 9: 523-538.
35. Rimmer, M. G., Nawana, N. S., Keene, G. C. and Pearcy, M. J. (1995). Failure Strengths of Different Meniscal Suturing Techniques. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 11: 146-150.
36. Roos, H., Laurén, M., Adalberth, T., Roos, E. M., Jonsson, K. and Lohmander, L. S. (1998). Knee Osteoarthritis after Meniscectomy: Prevalence of Radiographic Changes after Twenty‐One Years, Compared with Matched Controls. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 41: 687-693.
37. Sarimo, J., Rantanen, J., Tarvainen, T., Härkönen, M. and Orava, S. (2005). Evaluation of the Second-Generation Meniscus Arrow in the Fixation of Bucket-Handle Tears in the Vascular Area of the Meniscus. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 13: 614-618.
38. Seil, R., Rupp, S., Dienst, M., Mueller, B., Bonkhoff, H. and Kohn, D. M. (2000). Chondral Lesions after Arthroscopic Meniscus Repair Using Meniscus Arrows. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 16: 1-4.
39. Stärke, C., Kopf, S., Petersen, W. and Becker, R. (2009). Meniscal Repair. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 25: 1033-1044.
40. Swiontkowski, M. F., Schlehr, F., Sanders, R., Limbird, T. A., Pou, A. and Collins, J. C. (1988). Direct, Real Time Measurement of Meniscal Blood Flow an Experimental Investigation in Sheep. The American journal of sports medicine. 16: 429-433.
41. Tengrootenhuysen, M., Meermans, G., Pittoors, K., Van Riet, R. and Victor, J. (2011). Long-Term Outcome after Meniscal Repair. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy. 19: 236-241.
42. Venkatachalam, S., Godsiff, S. and Harding, M. (2001). Review of the Clinical Results of Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair. The Knee. 8: 129-133.

(Visited 396 times, 1 visits today)