| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
|
|
|||||||
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
|||||||||
Baylor Sports Medicine Institute, Barnhart Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Presented at the 24th annual meeting of the AOSSM, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 1998, and the annual meeting of the Arthroscopy Association of North America, San Diego, April 1998.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to David M. Lintner, MD, Baylor Sports Medicine Institute, Barnhart Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, 6560 Fannin, Suite 400 Houston, TX 77030
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.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. Becker, O. Brettschneider, K.-H. Grobel, R. von Versen, and C. Starke Distraction Forces on Repaired Bucket-Handle Lesions in the Medial Meniscus Am. J. Sports Med., December 1, 2006; 34(12): 1941 - 1947. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Zantop, K. Temmig, A. Weimann, A. K. Eggers, M. J. Raschke, and W. Petersen Elongation and Structural Properties of Meniscal Repair Using Suture Techniques in Distraction and Shear Force Scenarios: Biomechanical Evaluation Using a Cyclic Loading Protocol Am. J. Sports Med., May 1, 2006; 34(5): 799 - 805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Zantop, A. K. Eggers, V. Musahl, A. Weimann, and W. Petersen Cyclic Testing of Flexible All-Inside Meniscus Suture Anchors: Biomechanical Analysis Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 2005; 33(3): 388 - 394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. D. Miller, A. J. Kline, and K. G. Jepsen "All-Inside" Meniscal Repair Devices: An Experimental Study in the Goat Model Am. J. Sports Med., June 1, 2004; 32(4): 858 - 862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Zantop, A. K. Eggers, A. Weimann, J. Hassenpflug, and W. Petersen Initial Fixation Strength of Flexible All-Inside Meniscus Suture Anchors in Comparison to Conventional Suture Technique and Rigid Anchors: Biomechanical Evaluation of New Meniscus Refixation Systems Am. J. Sports Med., June 1, 2004; 32(4): 863 - 869. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Jani, M. J. Silva, R. V. Gregush, and M. J. Matava Mechanical Properties of Bioabsorbable Meniscal Arrows as a Function of Tear Location: An Ex Vivo Experimental Study Am. J. Sports Med., April 1, 2004; 32(3): 666 - 674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
