Mechanical Comparison of Meniscal Repair Devices with Mattress Suture Devices in Vitro

Overview

Journal Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

Publisher Wiley

Specialties Emergency Medicine
General Surgery
Orthopedics

Date 2010 Jun 10

PMID 20532866

Citations 14

Authors

Brian C Aros

Angela Pedroza

William K Vasileff

Alan S Litsky

David C Flanigan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

We report the load to failure in tensile testing of the MaxFire™ meniscal repair system (Biomet Inc, Warsaw, IN) and compare it to other current meniscal repair devices and mattress suture techniques. After creating a longitudinal tear in 42 one-year-old bovine menisci, 7 specimen groups defined by the meniscal repair device, suture, and/or mattress technique used for meniscal repair were randomly established: (Group 1: Fiberwire™ vertical mattress (VM), Group 2: Fiberwire™ horizontal mattress (HM), Group 3: FasT-Fix™ VM, Group 4: FasT-Fix™ HM, Group 5: RapidLoc™, Group 6: MaxFire™ VM, Group 7: MaxFire™ HM). After completing the repairs, the meniscal specimens were cyclically pre-loaded before load to failure testing was performed. The mean load to failure for each group was: Fiberwire VM (185 ± 41 N), Fiberwire HM (183 ± 36 N), FasT-Fix VM (125 ± 8 N), FasT-Fix HM (107 ± 29 N), RapidLoc (70 ± 12 N), MaxFire VM (145 ± 44 N), MaxFire HM (139 ± 50 N). An analysis of variance demonstrated a significant difference in the mean load to failure (F = 8.31 P < 0.01). Statistically significant differences were seen between both Fiberwire groups verses FasT-Fix HM and Rapid-Loc (P < 0.05). Three modes of failure were observed: suture breakage (17/42, 40.5%), tissue failure (18/42, 42.9%), and knot failure (7/42, 16.7%). 2-0 Fiberwire™ VM and HM repairs had the highest load to failure of all groups tested. The load to failure for the MaxFire™ meniscal repair system is comparable to other available all-inside meniscal repair systems.

Citing Articles

Animal models used in meniscal repair research from to : A systematic review.

Mazy D, Lu D, Leclerc S, Laor B, Wang J, Pinvicy A J Orthop. 2024; 55:23-31.

PMID: 38638113 PMC: 11021913. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2024.03.038.

Repair of a Horizontal Cleavage Tear of the Lateral Meniscus with Circumferential Compression Stitches and Marrow Venting Augmentation.

Mameri E, Verdejo F, Dasari S, Kerzner B, Shah S, Kasson L Arthrosc Tech. 2022; 11(11):e1937-e1944.

PMID: 36457397 PMC: 9705603. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2022.07.008.

Six-Month Outcomes of Clinically Relevant Meniscal Injury in a Large-Animal Model.

Bansal S, Meadows K, Miller L, Saleh K, Patel J, Stoeckl B Orthop J Sports Med. 2021; 9(11):23259671211035444.

PMID: 34796238 PMC: 8593308. DOI: 10.1177/23259671211035444.

Increased Construct Stiffness With Meniscal Repair Sutures and Devices Increases the Risk of Cheese-Wiring During Biomechanical Load-to-Failure Testing.

Muller S, Schwenk T, de Wild M, Dimitriou D, Rosso C Orthop J Sports Med. 2021; 9(6):23259671211015674.

PMID: 34189149 PMC: 8209834. DOI: 10.1177/23259671211015674.

Tensile strength of the pullout repair technique for the medial meniscus posterior root tear: a porcine study.

Fujii M, Furumatsu T, Xue H, Miyazawa S, Kodama Y, Hino T Int Orthop. 2017; 41(10):2113-2118.

PMID: 28707050 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3561-8.

References

Boenisch U, Faber K, Ciarelli M, Steadman J, Arnoczky S . Pull-out strength and stiffness of meniscal repair using absorbable arrows or Ti-Cron vertical and horizontal loop sutures. Am J Sports Med. 1999; 27(5):626-31. DOI: 10.1177/03635465990270051401. View

Kocabey Y, Chang H, Brand Jr J, Nawab A, Nyland J, Caborn D . A biomechanical comparison of the FasT-Fix meniscal repair suture system and the RapidLoc device in cadaver meniscus. Arthroscopy. 2006; 22(4):406-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.12.009. View

Miller M, Kline A, Gonzales J, Beach W . Pitfalls associated with FasT-Fix meniscal repair. Arthroscopy. 2002; 18(8):939-43. DOI: 10.1053/jars.2002.36146. View

Barber F, Herbert M, Schroeder F, Aziz-Jacobo J, Sutker M . Biomechanical testing of new meniscal repair techniques containing ultra high-molecular weight polyethylene suture. Arthroscopy. 2009; 25(9):959-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.03.020. View

Lind T, Kristensen G, Falkenberg B . Failure strength of a new meniscus arrow repair technique: biomechanical comparison with horizontal suture. Arthroscopy. 1997; 13(2):183-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0749-8063(97)90153-5. View

Miura H, Kawamura H, ARIMA J, Mawatari T, Nagamine R, Urabe K . A new, all-inside technique for meniscus repair. Arthroscopy. 1999; 15(4):453-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0749-8063(99)70066-6. View

Papageorgiou C, Gil J, Kanamori A, Fenwick J, Woo S, Fu F . The biomechanical interdependence between the anterior cruciate ligament replacement graft and the medial meniscus. Am J Sports Med. 2001; 29(2):226-31. DOI: 10.1177/03635465010290021801. View

Zantop T, Eggers A, Musahl V, Weimann A, Petersen W . Cyclic testing of flexible all-inside meniscus suture anchors: biomechanical analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2005; 33(3):388-94. DOI: 10.1177/0363546504271204. View

Rankin C, Lintner D, Noble P, Paravic V, Greer E . A biomechanical analysis of meniscal repair techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2002; 30(4):492-7. DOI: 10.1177/03635465020300040801. View

10.

Walsh S, Evans S, ODoherty D, Barlow I . Failure strengths of suture vs. biodegradable arrow and staple for meniscal repair: an in vitro study. Knee. 2001; 8(2):151-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0968-0160(00)00084-3. View

11.

Borden P, Nyland J, Caborn D, Pienkowski D . Biomechanical comparison of the FasT-Fix meniscal repair suture system with vertical mattress sutures and meniscus arrows. Am J Sports Med. 2003; 31(3):374-8. DOI: 10.1177/03635465030310030801. View

12.

Post W, Akers S, Kish V . Load to failure of common meniscal repair techniques: effects of suture technique and suture material. Arthroscopy. 1998; 13(6):731-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0749-8063(97)90008-6. View

13.

Zantop T, Eggers A, Musahl V, Weimann A, Hassenpflug J, Petersen W . A new rigid biodegradable anchor for meniscus refixation: biomechanical evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003; 12(4):317-24. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-003-0439-7. View

14.

Arnoczky S, Lavagnino M . Tensile fixation strengths of absorbable meniscal repair devices as a function of hydrolysis time. An in vitro experimental study. Am J Sports Med. 2001; 29(2):118-23. DOI: 10.1177/03635465010290020201. View

15.

Joshi M, Suh J, Marui T, Woo S . Interspecies variation of compressive biomechanical properties of the meniscus. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995; 29(7):823-8. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820290706. View

16.

Asik M, Sener N . Failure strength of repair devices versus meniscus suturing techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002; 10(1):25-9. DOI: 10.1007/s001670100247. View

17.

Mehta V, Terry M . Cyclic testing of 3 all-inside meniscal repair devices: a biomechanical analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37(12):2435-9. DOI: 10.1177/0363546509346051. View

18.

Kocabey Y, Taser O, Nyland J, Doral M, Demirhan M, Caborn D . Pullout strength of meniscal repair after cyclic loading: comparison of vertical, horizontal, and oblique suture techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006; 14(10):998-1003. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-006-0079-9. View

19.

Barber F, Herbert M, Richards D . Load to failure testing of new meniscal repair devices. Arthroscopy. 2004; 20(1):45-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2003.11.010. View

20.

Sweigart M, Zhu C, Burt D, DeHoll P, Agrawal C, Clanton T . Intraspecies and interspecies comparison of the compressive properties of the medial meniscus. Ann Biomed Eng. 2005; 32(11):1569-79. DOI: 10.1114/b:abme.0000049040.70767.5c. View