Meniscal repair using the FasT-Fix all-inside meniscal repair device

Purpose: We performed a prospective study of meniscal repair using a new all-inside suture meniscal repair device to evaluate its clinical efficacy. Type of study: Prospective case series. Methods: The results of 42 meniscal tears in 37 patients who underwent meniscal repair using the FasT-Fix device (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA) were prospectively evaluated. All cases were performed by 1 surgeon (A.A.S.). Preoperative and follow-up evaluation was performed using the objective and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) criteria as well as Lysholm functional questionnaires. Statistical significance was determined to be P < .05 based on a 2-tailed t test. Relook arthroscopy was performed in 8 patients (9 repairs). Any patient who had a hybrid repair was excluded. Results: The patient population studied, 37 patients comprising 42 meniscal repairs, had an average age of 27 years (range, 13 to 48 years), and an average follow-up of 24.3 months (range, 22 to 27 months). There were 20 male and 18 female patients with 23 medial and 9 lateral repairs; 5 patients had both menisci repaired. All patients had tears in Cooper radial zones 1 and 2 and, thus, had a peripheral meniscal rim of at least 2 mm. All tears were predominantly in the middle and posterior third of the meniscus and 8 tears extended into the posteriormost aspect of the anterior third of the meniscus. An average of 2.8 suture devices was used (range, 1 to 5), predominately in a vertical or vertical oblique mattress configuration. Forty-two percent were isolated meniscal injuries and 58% had a concurrent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Concomitant procedures were ACL reconstruction in 22, excision of loose body in 1, and excision of a large meniscal cyst in 1. Tear length averaged 2.9 cm (range, 1.5 to 4.5 cm). The success rate by objective IKDC score was 86% (73% normal, 13% nearly normal, and 14% abnormal). Of the 5 clinical failures, 3 were in the isolated group (80% success rate), and 2 were in the ACL group (91% success rate). Both the subjective IKDC and the Lysholm scores statistically improved (IKDC average, 59 preoperative and 92 postoperative; Lysholm average, 69 preoperative and 94 postoperative). There were 8 relook arthroscopies; 5 for failures and 3 for other procedures at which time complete healing was noted. In no case was there articular scuffing from the knots. Removal of a device at the time of surgery was necessary in 5 instances for failure of engagement of the T-Fix bar. An additional FasT-Fix device was then inserted without difficulty in each case. No case of postoperative extra-articular or intra-articular complications was encountered. Conclusions: The FasT-Fix suture device affords an all-inside method of meniscal repair using a strong vertical or horizontal mattress suture configuration and appears to be a safe and effective technique for meniscal repair for tears with at least a 2-mm peripheral rim. It has a high success rate and low complication rate and has results comparable to classic suture repair techniques. Level of evidence: Level IV.