Biomechanical Comparison of 3 Novel Repair Techniques for Radial Tears of the Medial Meniscus: The 2-Tunnel Transtibial Technique, a “Hybrid” Horizontal and Vertical Mattress Suture Configuration, and a Combined “Hybrid Tunnel” Technique

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 651-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick S. Buckley ◽  
Bryson R. Kemler ◽  
Colin M. Robbins ◽  
Zachary S. Aman ◽  
Hunter W. Storaci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medial Meniscus ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Failure Strength ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Transtibial Technique ◽  
Mattress Suture ◽  
Hybrid Repair ◽  
Vertical Mattress ◽  
Ultimate Failure ◽  
Repair Techniques

Background: Historically, radial meniscal tears were treated with partial or near-total meniscectomy, which usually resulted in poor outcomes. Radial meniscal tears function similar to a total meniscectomy and are challenging to treat. Repair of radial meniscal tears should be performed to prevent joint deterioration and the need for salvage procedures in the future. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare 3 repair techniques for radial tears of the medial meniscus: the 2-tunnel, hybrid, and hybrid tunnel techniques. It was hypothesized that there would be no differences among the 3 groups in regard to gapping and ultimate failure strength. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Thirty human male cadaver knees (10 matched pairs, n = 20; 10 unpaired, n = 10) were used to compare the 2-tunnel, hybrid, and hybrid tunnel repairs. A complete radial tear was made at the midbody of the medial meniscus. Repairs were performed according to the described techniques. Specimens were potted and mounted on a universal material testing machine where each specimen was cyclically loaded for 1000 cycles before experiencing a pull to failure. Gap distances at the tear site, ultimate failure load, and failure location were measured and recorded. Results: After 1000 cycles of cyclic loading, there were no significant differences in displacement among the 2-tunnel repair (3.0 ± 1.7 mm), hybrid repair (3.0 ± 0.9 mm), and hybrid tunnel repair (2.3 ± 1.0 mm; P = .4042). On pull-to-failure testing, there were also no significant differences in ultimate failure strength among the 2-tunnel repair (259 ± 103 N), hybrid repair (349 ± 149 N), and hybrid tunnel repair (365 ± 146 N; P = .26). However, the addition of vertical mattress sutures to act as a “rip stop” significantly reduced the likelihood of the sutures pulling through the meniscus during pull-to-failure testing for the hybrid and hybrid tunnel repairs (4 of 16, 25%) as compared with the 2-tunnel repair (7 of 9, 78%; P = .017). Conclusion: The results showed equivalent biomechanical testing with regard to gap distance and pull-to-failure strength among the 3 repairs. The addition of the vertical mattress sutures to act as a rip stop was effective in preventing meniscal cutout through the meniscus. Clinical Relevance: Effective healing of radial meniscal tears after repair is paramount to prevent joint deterioration and symptom development. Each tested repair showed a biomechanically equivalent and stable construct to use to repair radial meniscal tears. The authors recommend that rip stop vertical mattress sutures be used, especially in poor-quality meniscal tissue, to prevent suture cutout.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Comparison of Three Novel Repair Techniques for Radial Tears of the Medial Meniscus

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0035
Author(s):  
Patrick S. Buckley ◽  
Bryson Kemler ◽  
Colin Robbins ◽  
Zachary S. Aman ◽  
Hunter Storaci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medial Meniscus ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Biomechanical Testing ◽  
Failure Strength ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hybrid Repair ◽  
Vertical Mattress ◽  
Ultimate Failure ◽  
Repair Techniques

Objectives: Historically, radial meniscal tears were treated with partial or near- total meniscectomy which usually resulted in with poor outcomes. Radial meniscal tears function similar to a total meniscectomy and are challenging to treat. Repair of radial meniscal tears should be performed to prevent joint deterioration and the need for salvage procedures in the future. The purpose of this study was to compare three novel repair techniques for radial tears of the medial meniscus; the two-tunnel, the hybrid, and the hybrid tunnel techniques. We hypothesized that there would be no difference between the three groups in regards to gapping and ultimate failure strength. Methods: Thirty human male cadaver knees (ten matched pairs (n=20) and ten unpaired (n=10)) were used to compare the two-tunnel, hybrid, and hybrid tunnel repairs. A complete radial tear was made at the midbody of the medial meniscus. Repairs were performed according to the described techniques. Specimens were potted and mounted on a universal Instron testing machine where each specimen was cyclically loaded for 1000 cycles before experiencing a pull-to-failure. Gap distances at the tear site, ultimate failure load, and failure location were measured and recorded. Results: After 1000 cycles of cyclic loading, there was no significant difference in displacement between the two-tunnel repair (3.0 mm ± 1.7 mm), hybrid repair (3.0 mm ± 0.9 mm) or hybrid tunnel repair (2.3 mm ± 1.0 mm) (p=0.4042). On pull-to-failure testing there was also no significant difference in ultimate failure strength when comparing the two-tunnel (259 N ± 103 N), hybrid (349 N ± 149 N), or hybrid tunnel (365 N ± 146 N) repairs (p=0.26). However, the addition of vertical mattress sutures to act as a “rip stop” did significantly reduce the likelihood of the sutures pulling through the meniscus during pull-to-failure testing for the hybrid and hybrid tunnel repairs (4/16=25%) when compared to the two-tunnel repair (7/9=78%) (p=0.017). Conclusion: This study biomechanically evaluated two previously described techniques- the two-tunnel and hybrid repair- as well as one novel repair technique- the hybrid tunnel repair. The results showed equivalent biomechanical testing in regard to gap distance and pull to failure strength among each repair. The addition of the vertical mattress sutures to act as a rip stop suture was effective in preventing meniscal cut out through the meniscus. [Table: see text][Table: see text]

A Biomechanical Analysis of Meniscal Repair Techniques

2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 492-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher C. Rankin ◽  
David M. Lintner ◽  
Philip C. Noble ◽  
Vibor Paravic ◽  
Erin Greer
Keyword(s):  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Mattress Suture ◽  
Residual Displacement ◽  
Mode Of Failure ◽  
Vertical Mattress ◽  
Suture Group ◽  
Repair Techniques

Background Various methods are available for repair of meniscal tears: a biodegradable meniscal implant without sutures (Biofix meniscus arrow), a suture anchor device (T-fix), and horizontal and vertical mattress sutures. Hypothesis There is no difference in repair strength or mode of failure among the techniques compared. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods Reproducible tears were created in bovine menisci and repaired with each of the techniques. Residual displacement of the tear immediately after repair and the resistance to displacement under load applied perpendicular to the tear were measured and compared. Results The residual displacement after repair was highest in the Biofix arrow group (0.70 mm) and lowest in the vertical mattress suture group (0.21 mm). The ultimate strength of repair was strongest for the vertical sutures (202 ± 7 N) and lowest for the arrow and T-fix (95.9 ± 8 N and 99.4 ± 8 N, respectively). The force required to generate 2 mm of tear displacement was greatest for the vertical sutures (143 N) and least for the arrow (43.6 N). Conclusions Suture techniques were stronger at all levels of testing. Clinical Relevance Knowledge of biomechanical characteristics aids the surgeon in choosing the appropriate technique for each situation.

scholarly journals Radial Meniscal Tears Are Best Repaired by a Modified “Cross” Tie-Grip Suture Based on a Biomechanical Comparison of 4 Repair Techniques in a Porcine Model

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 232596712093581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuta Nakanishi ◽  
Yuichi Hoshino ◽  
Kouki Nagamune ◽  
Tetsuya Yamamoto ◽  
Kanto Nagai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Failure Load ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Maximum Load ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Tensile Testing Machine ◽  
Ultimate Failure Load ◽  
Load To Failure ◽  
Radial Tear ◽  
Ultimate Failure ◽  
The Cross

Background: The tie-grip suture can fix radial tears more rigidly than simple conventional sutures. However, one shortcoming is the residual gap at the central margin of the tear. The tie-grip suture was modified to address this issue and named the “cross tie-grip suture.” Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the suture stability and strength among 4 suturing techniques: the original tie-grip, cross tie-grip, and 2 conventional sutures (double horizontal and cross). It was hypothesized that the cross tie-grip suture would show the least displacement and resist the greatest maximum load. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 40 fresh-frozen porcine knees were dissected to acquire 80 menisci; 20 menisci were tested in each suture group. A radial tear was created at the middle third of the meniscal body. Repair was performed with the following: original tie-grip, cross tie-grip, double horizontal, and cross sutures. The mechanical strength of sutured menisci was evaluated using a tensile testing machine. All menisci underwent submaximal loading and load to failure. The gap distance and ultimate failure load were compared using analysis of variance. The failure mode was recorded after load-to-failure testing. Results: Displacement after 500 cycles was significantly smaller in the cross tie-grip group (0.4 ± 0.3 mm) compared with the tie-grip (0.9 ± 0.6 mm), double horizontal (1.2 ± 0.7 mm), and cross suture groups (1.4 ± 0.6 mm) ( P < .05). The ultimate failure load was significantly greater in the cross tie-grip (154.9 ± 29.0 N) and tie-grip (145.2 ± 39.1 N) groups compared with the double horizontal (81.2 ± 19.9 N) and cross suture groups (87.3 ± 17.7 N) ( P < .05). Tissue failure was the most common mode of failure in all groups. Conclusion: Upon repair of radial meniscal tears, the cross tie-grip suture showed less displacement compared with that of the tie-grip, double horizontal, and cross sutures and demonstrated equivalent load to failure to that of the tie-grip suture at time zero. Clinical Relevance: The cross tie-grip suture provided high resistance to displacement after repair of radial tears and may be advantageous in healing for radial meniscal tears.

Apportionment of Impairment from Meniscal Tears and Knee Arthritis

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
James B. Talmage
Keyword(s):  
Medial Meniscus ◽  
Degenerative Joint Disease ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Detailed Knowledge ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Knee Arthritis ◽  
Degenerative Arthritis ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Physical Findings ◽  
Causation Analysis

Abstract Meniscal tears and osteoarthritis (osteoarthrosis, degenerative arthritis, or degenerative joint disease) are two of the most common conditions involving the knee. This article includes definitions of apportionment and causes; presents a case report of initial and recurrent tears of the medial meniscus plus osteoarthritis (OA) in the medial compartment of the knee; and addresses questions regarding apportionment. The authors, experienced impairment raters who are knowledgeable regarding the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), show that, when instructions on impairment rating are incomplete, unclear, or inconsistent, interrater reliability diminishes (different physicians may derive different impairment estimates). Accurate apportionment of impairment is a demanding task that requires detailed knowledge of causation for the conditions in question; the mechanisms of injury or extent of exposures; prior and current symptoms, functional status, physical findings, and clinical study results; and use of the appropriate edition of the AMA Guides. Sometimes the available data are incomplete, requiring the rating physician to make assumptions. However, if those assumptions are reasonable and consistent with the medical literature and facts of the case, if the causation analysis is plausible, and if the examiner follows impairment rating instructions in the AMA Guides (or at least uses a rational and hence defensible method when instructions are suboptimal), the resulting apportionment should be credible.

The Buried Half Horizontal, Half Vertical Mattress Suture

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 1391-1393
Author(s):  
Wesley Wu ◽  
Arianne Chavez-Frazier ◽  
Michael Migden ◽  
Tri Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Mattress Suture ◽  
Vertical Mattress

scholarly journals High incidence of subsequent re-operation following treatments for medial meniscus tears combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: second-look arthroscopic study

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang-Gyun Kim ◽  
Soo-Hyun Kim ◽  
Jung-Heum Baek ◽  
Jae-Gyoon Kim ◽  
Ki-Mo Jang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healing Rate ◽  
Medial Meniscus ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Lateral Meniscus ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Second Look ◽  
Meniscus Tears ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Abstract Background The Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group recently reported that medial meniscus (MM) repairs are associated with more frequent re-operations when compared to lateral meniscus (LM) repairs. The purpose of this study was to compare the meniscal healing and the incidence of subsequent re-operation of medial and lateral meniscal tears that occurred concurrently with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent second-look arthroscopy after primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) between June 2005 to December 2016. The healing of meniscal tears following repair or left in situ, and re-tear following partial meniscectomy, were evaluated via second-look arthroscopy and compared between medial and lateral meniscus. Moreover, the incidence of subsequent meniscal re-operation after the index ACLR were investigated and compared between medial and lateral meniscus. Subsequent meniscal re-operation was performed in cases of the following three symptomatic meniscus tears: re-tears at the meniscectomy site; new tears; and failed healing of repaired or left in situ meniscus. Results There were 148 meniscal tears in 121 patients at index ACLR. There were 62 MM tears, 38 LM tears, and 24 bilateral meniscus tears. At second-look arthroscopy, the “successful healing” rate for tears following repair was higher in LM tears (91.2%) compared to MM tears (80.0%), although it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the healing of left in situ tears or re-tear of meniscectomy site between medial and lateral meniscus. Patients with MM tears combined with ACL injuries had a higher incidence of subsequent meniscal re-operation compared to patients with LM tears (25.6% vs 16.1%, p = 0.025). Conclusions There was a trend for the successful healing rate to be higher in LM repairs than MM repairs. Subsequent meniscal re-operations after ACLR were more frequent in patients with medial meniscal tears concurrently with ACL injuries in comparison to patients with lateral meniscal tears. Level of study Level IV, retrospective case series.

scholarly journals Different Suture Materials for Arthroscopic Transtibial Pull-out Repair of Medial Meniscal Posterior Root Tears: A Human Biomechanical Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 232596711987327
Author(s):  
Gilberto Y. Nakama ◽  
Zachary S. Aman ◽  
Hunter W. Storaci ◽  
Alexander S. Kuczmarski ◽  
Joseph J. Krob ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medial Meniscus ◽  
Failure Load ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Posterior Root ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Postoperative Rehabilitation ◽  
Pull Out ◽  
Ultimate Failure Load ◽  
Ultimate Failure ◽  
Suture Tape

Background: Transtibial pull-out repair of the medial meniscal posterior root (MMPR) has been largely assessed through biomechanical studies. Biomechanically comparing different suture types would further optimize MMPR fixation and affect clinical care. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal suture material for MMPR fixation. It was hypothesized that ultra high–molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) suture tape would be biomechanically superior to UHMWPE suture and standard suture. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: The MMPR attachment was divided in 24 human cadaveric knees and randomly assigned to 3 repair groups: UHMWPE suture tape, UHMWPE suture, and standard suture. Specimens were dissected down to the medial meniscus, and the posterior root attachments were sectioned off the tibia. Two-tunnel transtibial pull-out repair with 2 sutures, as determined by the testing group, was performed. The repair constructs were cyclically loaded between 10 and 30 N at 0.5 Hz for 1000 cycles to mimic the forces experienced on the medial meniscus during postoperative rehabilitation. Displacement was recorded at 1, 50, 100, 500, and 1000 cycles. Ultimate failure load, displacement at failure, and load at 3 mm of displacement (clinical failure) were also recorded. Results: UHMWPE suture tape had significantly less displacement of the medial meniscus when compared with standard suture at 1 (–0.22 mm [95% CI, –0.41 to –0.02]; P = .025) and 50 (–0.35 mm [95% CI, –0.67 to –0.03]; P = .029) cycles. There were no other significant differences observed in displacement between groups at any number of cycles. UHMWPE suture tape had significantly less displacement at the time of failure than standard suture (–3.71 mm [95% CI, –7.17 to –0.24]; P = .034). UHMWPE suture tape had a significantly higher load to reach the clinical failure displacement of 3 mm than UHMWPE suture (15.64 N [95% CI, 0.02 to 31.26]; P = .05). There were no significant differences in ultimate failure load between groups. Conclusion: The meniscal root repair construct with UHMWPE suture tape may be stronger and less prone to displacement than that with standard suture or UHMWPE suture. Clinical Relevance: UHMWPE suture tape may provide better clinical results compared with UHMWPE suture and standard suture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document