Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2025
Author Spotlight: Double Posteromedial Approach for Treating Posterior Cruciate Ligament Cysts
Published on: October 20, 2023
Comparison of Subsequent Surgery After Repair in Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears and Meniscectomy Analysis of a Large,
David Y Ding1, Lue-Yen Tucker2, Amy L Vieira1
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Background:
Bucket-handle meniscal tears are large longitudinal vertical meniscal tears that have an attached fragment flipped into the intercondylar notch. Meniscal repair attempts to restore the function of the meniscus and aims to preserve joint mechanics. Alternatively, meniscectomy results in quicker recovery but may lead to future degeneration.
Purposes:
To evaluate the long-term risk of subsequent ipsilateral knee surgery in patients who underwent a bucket-handle meniscal repair (BHMR) versus meniscectomy/bucket-handle meniscal debridement (BHMD) and assess risk factors associated with subsequent knee surgical intervention.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
An electronic health records search for all patients who underwent arthroscopic knee meniscal surgery (repair and meniscectomy) between 2011 and 2018 was performed. Natural language processing was used to search for terms of interest in the long operative notes to determine whether these surgeries were performed for bucket-handle meniscal tears. These patients comprised our initial cohort. Study patients were followed for at least 1 year and for up to 5 years (until December 31, 2019), with censoring at death or membership disenrollment. Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes were evaluated via a database review. The primary outcome was subsequent ipsilateral knee surgeries and secondary outcomes included contralateral knee surgeries, deep surgical site infections, and venous thrombotic events. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to model for subsequent surgical treatment of the ipsilateral knee. A subset analysis for patients aged 30 to 50 years was then performed.
Results:
The median follow-up time was 52.4 months (interquartile range [IQR], 33.5-60 months). A total of 1359 patients underwent BHMR and 1537 patients underwent BHMD. The median age was 24 years (IQR, 17-34 years) for the BHMR versus 38 years (IQR, 27-47 years) for the BHMD group (P < .001). Body mass index (BMI) was significantly lower in the BHMR group compared with the BHMD group (P < .001). BHMR was significantly more likely to be performed during a concomitant ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) than a BHMD (44.2% vs 30.1%, P < .001). During the follow-up period, a total of 656 subsequent ipsilateral procedures were performed in 393 (13.6%) patients. Patients who underwent initial BHMR were at a significantly higher risk of undergoing subsequent meniscal repair (4.3% vs 1%, P < .001), meniscectomy (12.1% vs 3.3%, P < .001), and ACLR (7.4% vs 2.9%, P < .001) compared with those who underwent BHMD. Multivariable analysis showed that BHMR, younger age, and lower BMI were risk factors for subsequent ipsilateral surgery. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, subset analysis showed that for patients aged 30 to 50 years, undergoing a BHMR versus a BHMD led to a 2.3-fold higher risk of subsequent surgery, a 5.3-fold higher risk of subsequent meniscal repair and a 3.2-fold higher risk of subsequent meniscectomy.
Conclusion:
BHMR was more often performed in younger patients with a lower BMI, especially during a concomitant ACLR. Patients treated with BHMR were more likely to undergo subsequent surgeries, with the likelihood decreasing with increasing age. Subset analyses showed increasing risk for subsequent surgeries with BHMR versus BHMD in the cohort consisting of patients aged 30 to 50 years.
