Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes and arthroscopic findings of proximal tibial osteotomy (PTO) alone versus PTO combined with medial meniscal posterior root repair (MMPRR).
Methods: Between October 2010 and September 2016, patients who underwent PTO and second-look arthroscopy at a minimum of 24 months postoperatively were reviewed. Patients were divided into group I (isolated PTO), group P (PTO with MMPRR using the pull-out technique), and group F (PTO and MMPRR using the side-to-side repair method). The subjective knee scores were assessed. Radiologic evaluation was based on the Kellgren-Lawrence grade. Healing of medial meniscal posterior root tears (good/loose/scar tissue/failed) and cartilage regeneration (excellent/good/poor) were assessed by arthroscopic examination.
Results: Mean clinical follow-up duration of group I (n = 22), P (n = 25), and F (n = 24) was 28.5 ± 5.7, 27.9 ± 6.2, and 26.3 ± 5.3 months, respectively. At final follow-up, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, and Tegner activity scale significantly improved in all groups (P < .001), and subjective scores did not differ among the groups. The Kellgren-Lawrence grade progression showed no significant differences among 3 groups (P = .461). Good healing of medial meniscal posterior root tears was found in 24% and 12.5% of patients in groups P and F, respectively, and 0 in group I; there were significant differences between groups I and P (P < .001) and groups I and F (P < .001). Excellent cartilage regeneration in the medial femoral condyle and medial tibial plateau was found in 13.6% and 9.1% in group I, 24% and 12% in group P, and 16.7% and 8.3% in group F, respectively, without significant differences.
Conclusions: Concurrent MMPRR during PTO appears to improve the arthroscopic appearance (healing of MMRPTs and cartilage regeneration) during second-look arthroscopy. However, concurrent MMPRR does not significantly improve clinical and radiologic outcomes at short-term follow-up.
Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.