Background: The newest generation of meniscus repair devices is designed to combine the benefits of the all-inside technique with the biomechanical properties of sutures.
Hypothesis: New flexible all-inside suture anchors have better fixation strength than rigid anchors, but there is no difference when compared to conventional horizontal and vertical mattress sutures.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: In fresh-frozen bovine menisci, initial fixation strength, stiffness, and failure mode of different meniscus fixation techniques (FastT-Fix, RapidLoc, Meniscus Arrow, horizontal and vertical 2.0 Ethibond sutures) were evaluated in a computer-based materials testing machine at a rate of 12.5 mm/sec.
Results: The vertical and horizontal FastT-Fix suture anchors were the strongest devices with regard to pullout strength, with no significant difference compared to the vertical 2-0 Ethibond sutures. Horizontal sutures, Meniscus Arrow, and RapidLoc had significantly lower pullout strength. Vertical and horizontal FastT-Fix suture anchors showed significantly higher stiffness than the other devices.
Conclusions: Biomechanical properties of flexible all-inside meniscus anchors (FastT-Fix) are comparable to conventional vertical suture techniques. Characteristics of the flexible RapidLoc are comparable to rigid anchors (Meniscus Arrow).
Clinical Relevance: From the biomechanical point of view, flexible all-inside meniscus refixation devices are an alternative to conventional suture techniques and rigid meniscus anchors.
1. Albrecht-Olsen P, Kristensen G, Tormälä P.Meniscus bucket-handle fixation with an absorbable Biofix tack: development of a new technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1993;1:104-106.
2.
2. Albrecht-Olsen P, Kristensen G, Burgaard P, et al.The arrow versus horizontal suture in arthroscopic meniscus repair: a prospective randomized study with arthroscopic evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7:268-273.
3.
3. Albrecht-Olsen P, Lind T, Kristensen G, et al.Failure strength of a new meniscus arrow repair technique: biomechanical comparison with horizontal suture. Arthroscopy. 1997;13:183-187.
4.
4. Anderson K, Marx RG, Hannafin J, et al.Chondral injury following meniscal repair with biodegradable implant. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:749-753.
5.
5. Arnoczky SP, Lavagnino M.Tensile fixation strength of absorbable meniscal repair devices as a function of hydrolysis time. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29:118-123.
6.
6. Arnoczky SP, Warren RF. Microvasculature of the human meniscus. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:90-95.
7.
7. Arnoczky SP, Warren RF. The microvasculature of the meniscus and its response to injury: an experimental study in the dog. Am J Sports Med. 1983;11:131-141.
8.
8. Arnoczky SP, Warren RF, Spivak JM. Meniscal repair using an exogenous fibrin clot: an experimental study in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:1209-1217.
9.
9. Asik M, Sener N.Failure strength of repair devices versus meniscus suturing techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002;10:25-29.
10.
10. Barber FA. Accelerated rehabilitation for meniscus repairs. Arthroscopy. 1994;10:206-210.
11.
11. Barber FA, Herbert MA. Meniscal repair devices. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:613-618.
12.
12. Becker R, Schoeder M, Stärke C, et al.Biomechanical investigations of different meniscal repair implants in comparison with horizontal sutures on human meniscus. Arthroscopy. 2002;17:439-444.
13.
13. Becker R, Stärke C, Heymann M, et al.Biomechanical properties under cyclic loading of seven meniscus repair techniques. Clin Orthop. 2002;400:236-245.
14.
14. Boenisch UW, Faber KJ, Ciarelli M, et al.Pull-out strength and stiffness of meniscal repair using absorbable arrows or Ti-Cron vertical and horizontal loop sutures. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27:626-631.
15.
15. Bullough PG, Munuera L, Murphy J, et al.The strength of the menisci of the knee as it relates to their fine structure. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1979;52:564-570.
16.
16. DeHaven KE. Meniscus repair. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27:242-250.
17.
17. Ellermann A, Siebold R, Buelow JU, et al.Clinical evaluation of meniscus repair with a bioabsorbable arrow: a 2- to 3-year follow-up study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002;10:289-293.
18.
18. Fairbanks TJ. Knee joint changes after meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948;30:664-670.
19.
19. Fisher ST, Marken DC, Koman JD, et al.Pull-out and shear failure strength of arthroscopic meniscal repair systems. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2001;10:294-299.
20.
20. Fukubayashi T, Kurosawa H.The contact area and pressure distribution pattern of the knee: a study of normal and osteoarthrotic knee joints. Acta Orthop Scand. 1980;51:871.
21.
21. Greis PE, Bardana DD, Holmstrom MC, et al.Meniscal injury, I: basic science and evaluation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002;10:168-176.
22.
22. Howell JR, Handoll HH. Surgical treatment for meniscal injuries of the knee in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:1353.
23.
23. Joshi MD, Suh JK, Woo SL. Interspecies variation of compressive biomechanical properties of the meniscus. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29:823-828.
24.
24. Karaoglu S, Duygulu F, Inan M, et al.Improving the biomechanical properties of the T-fix using oblique direction: in vitro study on bovine menisci. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002;10:198-201.
25.
25. Kirsch L, Kohn D, Glowik A.Forces in medial and lateral meniscus sutures during knee extension: an in vitro study. J Biomech. 1999;31:104.
27. Koukoubis TD, Glisson RR, Feagin JA, et al.Meniscal fixation with an absorbable staple: an experimental study in dogs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1997;5:22-30.
28.
28. Laprell H, Stein V, Petersen W.Arthroscopic all-inside meniscus repair using a new refixation device: a prospective study. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:387-393.
29.
29. McDermott ID, Richards SW, Hallam P, et al.A biomechanical study of four different meniscal repair systems, comparing pull-out strength and gapping under cyclic loading. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002;10:294-299.
30.
30. Miller MD, Kline AJ, Gonzales J, et al.Pitfalls associated with Fast T-Fix meniscal repair. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:939-943.
31.
31. Pauwels F. Eine neue Theorie über den Einfluß mechanischer Reize auf die Differenzierung der Stützgewebe: Zehnter Beitrag zur funktionellen Anatomie und kausalen Morphologie des Stützapparates. Zeitschrift für Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte. 1960;121:478-515.
32.
32. Petersen W, Tillmann B.Age-related blood and lymph supply of the knee menisci: a cadaver study. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66:308.
33.
33. Petersen W, Tillmann B.Collagenous fibril texture of the human knee joint menisci. Anat Embryol (Berl). 1998;197:317-324.
34.
34. Petersen W, Tillmann B.Structure and vascularization of the knee joint menisci [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1999;137:31-37.
35.
35. Post WR, Akers SR, Kish V.Load to failure of common meniscal repair techniques and suture material. Arthroscopy. 1997;13:731-736.
36.
36. Proctor CS, Schmidt MB, Whipple RR, et al.Material properties of the normal medial bovine meniscus. J Orthop Res. 1989;7:771-782.
37.
37. Rankin CC, Lintner DM, Noble PC, et al.A biomechanical analysis of meniscal repair techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30:492-497.
38.
38. Rimmer MG, Nawana NS, Keene GCR, et al.Failure strength of different meniscal suturing techniques. Arthroscopy. 1995;11:146-150.
39.
39. Ross G, Grabhill J, McDevitt. Chondral injury after meniscal repair with bioabsorbable arrows. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:754-756.
40.
40. Scapinelli R.Vascular anatomy of the human cruciate ligaments and surrounding structures. Clin Anat. 1969;10:151-162.
41.
41. Seil R, Rupp S, Dienst M, et al.Chondral lesion after arthroscopic meniscus repair using meniscus arrows. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:E17.
