Biomechanical Comparison Between Suture Anchor and Transtibial Pull-out Repair for Posterior Medial Meniscus Root Tears

Author:

Feucht Matthias J.12,Grande Eduardo3,Brunhuber Johannes1,Rosenstiel Nikolaus1,Burgkart Rainer3,Imhoff Andreas B.1,Braun Sepp1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany

2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Freiburg University Hospital, Freiburg, Germany

3. Biomechanic Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany

Abstract

Background: Posterior medial meniscus root (PMMR) tears have a serious effect on knee joint biomechanics. Currently used techniques for refixation of the PMMR include the transtibial pull-out repair (TP) and suture anchor repair (SA). These techniques have not been compared biomechanically. Hypothesis: The SA technique provides superior biomechanical properties compared with the TP technique. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 24 fresh-frozen porcine tibiae with attached intact medial menisci were used. The specimens were randomly assigned to 3 groups (8 specimens each). A standardized PMMR tear was created in 16 specimens. Refixation of the PMMR was performed by either the TP or SA technique. The native PMMR was left intact in 8 specimens. All specimens were subjected to cyclic loading followed by load-to-failure testing. Displacement after 100, 500, and 1000 cycles; maximum load to failure; stiffness; and displacement at failure were recorded. Results: Both repair techniques showed a significantly higher displacement during cyclic loading and a significantly lower maximum load and stiffness during load-to-failure testing compared with the native PMMR ( P < .05). The SA technique showed a significantly lower displacement after 100, 500, and 1000 cycles ( P < .001) and a significantly higher stiffness ( P = .016) compared with the TP technique. Maximum load did not differ significantly between the SA and TP techniques ( P = .027, Bonferroni adjustment). No significant difference between the 3 groups was observed for displacement at failure ( P > .05). Conclusion: The SA technique provided superior biomechanical properties compared with the TP technique. Both repair techniques did not reach the strength of the native PMMR. Clinical Relevance: The favorable biomechanical properties of the SA technique might be beneficial for healing of the repaired PMMR and restoration of meniscus function. Because of inferior time zero stability compared with the native PMMR, slow rehabilitation is recommended after meniscus root repair.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3