Affiliation:
1. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
2. Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery Charité – University Medicine Berlin Berlin Germany
3. Center for Anatomy and Cell Biology, Division of Anatomy Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
4. Research Group for Structural Polymers Technical University Vienna Vienna Austria
Abstract
AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a latest generation all‐suture anchor repair device (ASARD) for meniscal repair with that of a latest generation PEEK‐cage anchor repair device (PCARD) in an experimental setting using cadaveric menisci.MethodsTwenty‐six menisci were obtained from the knees of fresh body donors. Artificially created meniscal lesions were treated randomly, using a single stitch with either an ASARD or a PCARD. Cyclic biomechanical testing, utilising a universal material testing machine and following an established protocol, was carried out and load‐to‐failure (LTF), displacement, stiffness, and mode‐of‐failure (MOF) reported.ResultsMean LTF was found to be 61% higher in the ASARD group at 107.10 N (standard deviation [SD], 42.34), compared to 65.86 N (SD, 27.42) in the PCARD group with statistical significance (p = 0.022). The ASARD exhibited a trend towards higher stiffness (10.35 N; SD, 3.92 versus 7.78 N; SD; 3.59) and higher displacement at cycles one, 100, and 499 (1.64, 3.27, and 4.17 mm versus 0.93, 2.19, and 2.83 mm) compared to the PCARD. Cheese wiring was the most common mode‐of‐failure in both groups (76.9%).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that an ASARD shows a higher mean LTF than a PCARD when compared in an experimental biomechanical setting.Level of evidenceLevel III