Intratunnel Anchor Fixation and Transtibial Pull‐Through Repair Show Comparable Short‐Term Outcomes After Meniscus Root Repair: A Propensity‐Matched Comparative Study

Purpose To compare short‐term outcomes of intratunnel anchor fixation versus transtibial pull‐through repair for meniscus root tears with a minimum of 12‐month follow‐up. Methods Patients who underwent primary meniscus root repair between 2011 and 2024 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria consisted of primary medial or lateral meniscus root repair using either intratunnel anchor fixation or transtibial pull‐through repair, availability of preoperative radiographs, and completion of postoperative patient‐reported outcome measures with a minimum of 12‐month follow‐up. The groups were propensity‐matched by age, sex, body mass index, operative side, root laterality, and concomitant procedures. Baseline radiographic characteristics (hip‐knee‐ankle angle and posterior tibial slope) were measured. Outcomes included Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Tegner activity score (preoperative and postoperative), Visual Analog Scale for pain at rest and with activity, satisfaction, subjective surgical outcome, and reoperations. Results Fifty patients who underwent intratunnel anchor fixation (mean age, 44 years) were propensity‐matched to 100 patients who underwent transtibial pull‐through repair (mean age, 41 years). Mean follow‐up was 1.5 years (range, 1.0‐2.3) in the intratunnel anchor group and 6.1 years (range, 2.7‐13.7) in the transtibial pull‐through group. Reoperation rates were 8% and 14%, respectively ( P = .43), with repair failure occurring in 4% and 6% ( P > .99). Preoperative and postoperative Tegner scores were similar between groups. Tegner minimal clinical important difference was 0.8, and 26.5% of intratunnel anchor patients achieved this compared with 0% of transtibial pull‐through patients. Patients in the intratunnel anchor cohort reported slightly lower Visual Analog Scale pain with activity (1.8 vs 2.5, P = .02). Postoperative Lysholm (87 vs 83, P = .05) and International Knee Documentation Committee scores (79 vs 76, P = .09) were comparable between groups. A greater proportion of intratunnel anchor patients achieved Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State compared with transtibial pull‐through patients for Visual Analog Scale with activity (74% vs 56%, P = .03) and Lysholm (66% vs 47%, P = .01). Most patients in both cohorts rated their outcome as “much better” or “slightly better” ( P = .49), and satisfaction scores were high. Conclusions At short‐term follow‐up, both the intratunnel anchor and transtibial pull‐through techniques showed high patient satisfaction and comparable overall clinical outcomes. There were no differences in reoperation rates between techniques. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative case series.