Biomechanical Comparison of an All-Inside Meniscal Repair Device Construct Versus Pullout Sutures for Arthroscopic Transtibial Repair of Posterior Medial Meniscus Root Tears: A Matched-Pair Cadaveric Study.
all-inside meniscal repair device
biomechanical testing
meniscus root tear
pullout suture
root repair
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
29
10
2020
accepted:
29
11
2020
entrez:
17
5
2021
pubmed:
18
5
2021
medline:
18
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Meniscus root repairs are important for restoring knee function after a complete meniscus root tear. Various suturing patterns have been proposed for the root repair. The 2-simple-stitches (TSS) method is currently the preferred technique, as it is simplest to perform and allows the least displacement of the meniscus root. To compare the biomechanical properties of a posterior medial meniscus transtibial root repair consisting of an all-inside meniscal repair device (AMRD) construct with the TSS pullout suture pattern. Controlled laboratory study. Ten pairs of cadaveric medial menisci were prepared with 1 of the 2 constructs. The constructs were randomized between pairs. All constructs were subjected to preloading with 2 N for 10 seconds and then cyclic loading from 5 N to 20 N for 1000 cycles at a frequency of 0.5 Hz. Subsequently, the menisci were loaded to failure at a rate of 0.5 mm/s. All loads were applied in-line with the circumferential meniscal fibers near the posterior medial meniscal horn. The mean yield load and stiffness were similar for both constructs. The elongation after cyclic loading was greater for the AMRD. The displacement at both yield load and ultimate failure were also higher for the AMRD. The ultimate failure load of the AMRD was also significantly higher. During load to failure, the mode of failure in the AMRD was heterogeneous. All the TSS constructs failed by suture cutout. Posterior medial meniscus root repairs using both the AMRD and TSS constructs have elongation under the biomechanically acceptable threshold of 3 mm. The stiffness and yield loads indicate similar mechanical properties of the constructs. However, the significantly higher elongation for the AMRD leaves the TSS method as the preferred option for transtibial repairs. Despite this, the AMRD construct may still represent a viable alternative to the TSS suture pattern, comparable to alternative suture patterns with similar limitations. The AMRD construct may represent a viable alternative to the TSS suture pattern.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Meniscus root repairs are important for restoring knee function after a complete meniscus root tear. Various suturing patterns have been proposed for the root repair. The 2-simple-stitches (TSS) method is currently the preferred technique, as it is simplest to perform and allows the least displacement of the meniscus root.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To compare the biomechanical properties of a posterior medial meniscus transtibial root repair consisting of an all-inside meniscal repair device (AMRD) construct with the TSS pullout suture pattern.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS
METHODS
Ten pairs of cadaveric medial menisci were prepared with 1 of the 2 constructs. The constructs were randomized between pairs. All constructs were subjected to preloading with 2 N for 10 seconds and then cyclic loading from 5 N to 20 N for 1000 cycles at a frequency of 0.5 Hz. Subsequently, the menisci were loaded to failure at a rate of 0.5 mm/s. All loads were applied in-line with the circumferential meniscal fibers near the posterior medial meniscal horn.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean yield load and stiffness were similar for both constructs. The elongation after cyclic loading was greater for the AMRD. The displacement at both yield load and ultimate failure were also higher for the AMRD. The ultimate failure load of the AMRD was also significantly higher. During load to failure, the mode of failure in the AMRD was heterogeneous. All the TSS constructs failed by suture cutout.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Posterior medial meniscus root repairs using both the AMRD and TSS constructs have elongation under the biomechanically acceptable threshold of 3 mm. The stiffness and yield loads indicate similar mechanical properties of the constructs. However, the significantly higher elongation for the AMRD leaves the TSS method as the preferred option for transtibial repairs. Despite this, the AMRD construct may still represent a viable alternative to the TSS suture pattern, comparable to alternative suture patterns with similar limitations.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
CONCLUSIONS
The AMRD construct may represent a viable alternative to the TSS suture pattern.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33997064
doi: 10.1177/23259671211000464
pii: 10.1177_23259671211000464
pmc: PMC8072104
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671211000464Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: Smith & Nephew provided the funding for this study as well as donating the devices and sutures. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Arthroscopy. 2012 Jun;28(6):827-34
pubmed: 22317797
Arthroscopy. 2010 Oct;26(10):1326-32
pubmed: 20887931
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Dec;15(12):1510-3
pubmed: 17370062
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Dec;42(12):2988-95
pubmed: 25239930
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Mar;45(4):884-891
pubmed: 27919916
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Oct;39(10):2141-6
pubmed: 21765008
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Sep;90(9):1922-31
pubmed: 18762653
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Jan;23(1):132-9
pubmed: 23999948
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jul;39(7):1439-43
pubmed: 21403125
Arthroscopy. 2016 Feb;32(2):295-305
pubmed: 26422707
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Dec;41(12):2784-90
pubmed: 24013348
Arthroscopy. 2014 Oct;30(10):1280-6
pubmed: 25085047
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Jan;37(1):124-9
pubmed: 18815238
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Nov;102(7):951-954
pubmed: 27567426
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Jan;42(1):187-93
pubmed: 24018976
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Apr;43(4):892-8
pubmed: 25556220
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015 Feb;23(2):71-6
pubmed: 25624359
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):758-64
pubmed: 17403797
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Nov;42(11):2699-706
pubmed: 25225682
Arthroscopy. 2016 Jan;32(1):111-9
pubmed: 26422709