Editorial Commentary: Repair of Posterior-Medial Meniscal Root Tears: One More Potential Tool in Your Box

No topic in meniscal surgery has generated as much interest over the past decade as meniscal root tears. These rather simple tears, if left untreated, act biomechanically equivalently to a complete meniscectomy. As a result, many investigators have championed the treatment of this injury through the innovation of various surgical techniques designed to restore the biomechanical function of the meniscus to prevent the long-term clinical effects of a complete meniscectomy. Most procedures to repair the posterior meniscal root to its tibial attachment can be broadly grouped into using either a suture anchor or a transtibial bone tunnel for tibial fixation. There are obvious pros and cons to both methods, and most surgeons become comfortable with one “go-to” technique depending on their level of experience with meniscal root repair and their comfort level with various arthroscopic techniques. Most surgeons prefer the transtibial technique in which the sutured meniscus is anchored to its anatomic tibial attachment via a tunnel through which the sutures pass before being secured with either a suture anchor or screw post to the anterior tibial cortex. This technique has considerable biomechanical and clinical evidence to support its use. Unfortunately, there are drawbacks to the transtibial method that must be considered, such as the technical difficulties of accurately and safely drilling the tibial tunnel, the risk of suture failure or attenuation through the tunnel, and the challenge associated with placement of the tunnel in the setting of a concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Therefore, further advances in meniscal root repair are always welcomed by the arthroscopic community. However, as with any surgical innovation, 3 factors must be considered before a new repair procedure can be widely recommended: (1) it must be technically “doable” by most surgeons treating the clinical problem; (2) it must have biomechanical evidence to support its use; and (3) it must result in clinical outcomes that are at least as good as, and preferably better than, current techniques.