Long-term Comparative Outcomes of All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears: A Cohort Study.

Background: Bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs) are a common subtype of meniscal tears that represent a clinical challenge. Arthroscopic inside-out repair has been considered the gold standard in treatment; however, an all-inside approach has gained widespread popularity, with limited long-term evidence. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to (1) compare long-term clinical outcomes and rates of failure after surgical repair of BHMTs using the all-inside versus inside-out technique, and 2) identify risk factors for failure at long-term follow-up. It was hypothesized that clinical outcomes and rates of failure would be similar between the 2 techniques. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who had undergone surgical repair of BHMTs between 2003 and 2013 at a single institution were identified. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up using the Tegner scale, International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, and visual analog scale pain at rest and with activity. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors for repair failure, defined as revision meniscal surgery and/or documented meniscal retear. Results: In total, 63 patients were included (37 with inside-out repair, 26 with all-inside repair). At a mean follow-up of 11.2 years, the survival rate for BHMT repair was 63% overall, 70% for all-inside repairs, and 60% for inside-out repairs ( Conclusion: Long-term follow-up of BHMT repair demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcomes and failure rates. In appropriately selected patients, the all-inside technique did not compromise outcome as compared with the inside-out repair techniques. For both methods, older age was associated with lower failure rates and medial meniscus repair was associated with increased failure.