The all-inside all-suture technique demonstrated better biomechanical behaviors in meniscus radial tear repair

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

This systematic review, registered with Prospero, aims to identify an optimal animal model for meniscus repair research, moving from ex vivo experimentation to in vivo studies. Data sources included PubMed, Medline, all Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Web of Science, and Embase searched in March 2023. Studies were screened using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Extracted data including animal model, type of experiment, type of tear, surgical techniques, and measured outcomes, were recorded, reviewed, and analyzed by four independent reviewers. The SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) Rob tool was used for critical appraisal and risk of bias assessment. Out of 11,719 studies, 72 manuscripts were included for data extraction and analysis; 41 ex vivo extra-articular studies, 20 ex vivo intra-articular studies, and only 11 in vivo studies. Six animal models were employed: porcine, bovine, lapine, caprine, canine, and ovine. Longitudinal lesions were the most frequently studied tear pattern and sutures the most common repair technique. Studied outcomes focused mainly on biomechanical assessments and gross observations. This systematic review can guide researchers in their choice of animal model for meniscus repair research; it highlighted the strengths of the porcine, caprine, and bovine models for ex vivo cadaveric studies, while the porcine and caprine models were found to be more suited to in vivo studies due to their similarities with human anatomy. Research teams should familiarize themselves with the advantages and disadvantages of various animal models before initiating protocols to improve standardization in the field.

More Is Not Merrier: Increasing Numbers of All-Inside Implants Do Not Correlate with Higher Odds of Revision Surgery

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the number of all-inside meniscal repair implants placed and the risk of repair failure. We hypothesized that the use of higher numbers of all-inside meniscus repair implants would be associated with increased failure risk. A retrospective chart review identified 351 patients who underwent all-inside meniscus repair between 2006 and 2013 by a sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon at a single institution. Patient demographics (age, body mass index [BMI], sex) and surgical data (number of implants used, concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction [cACLR], and tear type/size/location) were recorded. Patients who received repairs in both menisci or who had follow-up < 1-year postoperatively were excluded. Repair failure was identified through chart review or patient interviews defined as a revision surgery on the index knee such as partial meniscectomy, total knee arthroplasty, meniscus transplant, or repeat repair. Logistic regression modeling was utilized to evaluate the relationship between the number of implants used and repair failure. A total of 227 all-inside meniscus repairs were included with a mean follow-up of 5.0 ± 3.0 years following surgery. Repair failure was noted in 68 knees (30.3%)-in 28.1% of knees with fewer than four implants and in 35.8% of knees with four or more implants (p = 0.31). No significant increase in failure was observed with increasing number of all-inside medial (odds ratio [OR]: 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-1.7; p = 0.46) or lateral (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.47-1.57; p = 0.63) implants after controlling for patient age, BMI, cACLR, tear type, or size. Tears of the lateral meniscus located in the red-white and white-white zones had lower odds of failure (OR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.02-0.88; p = 0.036) than tears within the red-red zone, and patients with cACLR had lower odds of repair failure (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.18-0.86, p = 0.024) than those without. The number of all-inside implants placed during meniscus tear repair did not affect the likelihood of repair failure leading to reoperation after controlling for BMI, age, tear type, size, location, and cACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  III.

Tough gel adhesive is an effective method for meniscal repair in a bovine cadaveric study

PURPOSE

To test tough gel adhesives to repair meniscus tears under relevant loading conditions and determine if they have adequate biomechanical properties to repair meniscus tears in a bovine cadaveric study.

METHODS

Cyclic compression tests on 24 dissected bovine knees were performed. The tough gel adhesive was used either as an adhesive patch or as a coating bonded onto commercially available surgical sutures. Forty-eight menisci were tested in this study; 24 complete radial tears and 24 bucket-handle tears. After preconditioning, the specimens underwent 100 cycles of compression, (800 N/0.5 Hz) on an Instron© machine and the size of the gaps measured. One third of the menisci were repaired with pristine sutures, one third with adhesive patches, and one third with sutures coated in adhesive gel. The size of the gaps was compared after 100 and 500 cycles of compression.

RESULTS

The mean gap measured at the tear site without treatment was 6.46 mm (± 1.41 mm) for radial tears and 1.92 mm (± 0.65 mm) for bucket-handle tears. After treatment and 500 cycles of compression, the mean gap was 1.63 mm (± 1.41 mm) for pristine sutures, 1.50 mm (± 1.16 mm) for adhesive sutures and 2.06 mm (± 1.53 mm) for adhesive gel patches. There was no significant difference between treatments regardless of the type of tear. Also, the gaps for radial tears increased significantly with the number of compression cycles applied (p > 0.001).

CONCLUSION

From a biomechanical standpoint, the tough adhesive gel patch is as effective as suturing. In addition, it would allow the repair of non-suturable tears and thus broaden the indications for meniscus repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Controlled laboratory study.

Biomechanical Comparison of the Simple Suture Technique, Meniscal Matrix-Assisted Repair, and a Novel Meniscus Cap Suture Technique for Complex Meniscal Repair

Background

Meniscal repair is the gold standard for simple morphology tears. However, when the morphology and chronicity of the tear are less favorable, the success of the standard techniques is reduced.

Purpose/Hypothesis

To compare meniscal repair augmented by a new bioresorbable implant (Meniscus Cap) versus a traditional simple suture technique and the currently available augmented repair collagen matrix meniscus wrapping technique. It was hypothesized that the Meniscus Cap suture technique would increase ultimate failure load and less displacement during cyclic loading.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

A total of 80 fresh porcine menisci were harvested. Complex tears were created in 60 menisci, and 20 intact menisci were tested as the control group. Repairs were performed on the 60 meniscal tears using 1 of the 3 techniques (20 menisci each): an inside-out H-suture group (SS), the collagen matrix wrapping technique (CMW), and the Meniscus Cap bioresorbable implant group (CM). The menisci were subjected to 500 loading cycles from 4 to 20 N at a frequency of 1 Hz, and the total displacement was recorded. Then, the specimens underwent load to failure testing at a rate of 3.15 mm/s, and the failure mode was noted.

Results

After 500 cycles of cyclic loading, there were no significant differences in displacement between the controls and CM group (0.524 vs 0.448 mm; P = .95). The displacement after the CM was significantly smaller compared with the CMW and the SS (0.448 vs 1.077 mm [P = .0009] and 0.448 vs 0.848 mm [P = .04], respectively). The ultimate load to failure was significantly greater for the controls and the CM group compared with the SS and CMW groups (controls, 1278.7 N and CM, 628.5 N vs CMW, 380.1 N and SS, 345.1 N; P < .05). The failure mode was suture breakage (suture failure) for all repairs.

Conclusion

In a porcine specimen meniscal repair model, the biomechanical properties of a novel Meniscus Cap repair technique were superior to that of the simple suture and CMW techniques.

Clinical Relevance

The results suggest that the Meniscal Cap repair technique may provide sufficient primary stability of the meniscal fixation even in the cases of complex meniscal tears.

Several Techniques Exist With Favorable Biomechanical Outcomes in Radial Meniscus Tear Repair-A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To compare biomechanical properties of various radial tear repair techniques in the medial and lateral menisci.

METHODS

A search was performed for key words regarding mechanical properties of repair of radial meniscal tears in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, yielding 1791 articles. Articles were screened using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines against inclusion criteria and underwent Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) methodologic quality assessment. Repair constructs evaluated were classified based on repair technique, use of a transtibial augmentation, and the number, orientation, and pattern of stitches. Results published across different studies were compared but not subjected to meta-analysis due to variability in testing procedures and heterogeneity of repair methods.

RESULTS

We identified 20 studies that performed mechanical testing on 21 different radial meniscal tear repair techniques. The greatest reported mean load-to-failure (LtF) were the transtibial 2-tunnel + 4 horizontal inside-out sutures (191.2 N ± 17.3, cadaver) and all-inside double vertical repair (146.3 N ± 36.2, porcine). The transtibial technique improved LtF and displacement of an inside-out (IO) horizontal repair. All-inside vertical repairs demonstrated greater LtF, stiffness, and displacement compared with IO horizontal repairs in 2 studies. Compared with IO double horizontal repairs, all-inside double vertical or IO double horizontal repairs with reinforcing stitches parallel to the tear exhibited greater LtF in 3 studies and stiffness in 2 studies. Two studies reported that parallel reinforcing stitches significantly reduced suture tear-through compared with similar, nonreinforced repairs. Mean MINORS score for all studies analyzed was 19.88 ± 1.47 points.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review demonstrated that there may be alternatives to traditional IO horizontal repairs for radial meniscus tears. Less-invasive all-inside vertical techniques reinforced with suture parallel to the tear instead of standard IO horizontal sutures may improve strength of repair. In addition, transtibial 2-tunnel augmentation may also increase strength of radial meniscus tear repairs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There may be alternatives to IO horizontal repairs for radial meniscus tears.

All-Inside Meniscus Repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The indications for partial meniscectomy are becoming increasingly limited, and recent evidence suggests that the meniscus should be preserved whenever possible. Because of its many proposed advantages, all-inside meniscus repairs are becoming increasingly common. This review discusses the indications, advantages, disadvantages, and biomechanical and clinical outcomes of all-inside meniscus repair.

RECENT FINDINGS

All-inside meniscus repair demonstrates equal functional outcomes, healing rates, and complications compared to inside-out repair of vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle tears with the advantages of decreased surgical time and faster post-operative recovery. In addition, return-to-sport and activity levels are high following all-inside repair regardless of whether concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is performed. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated advantages of all-inside meniscal based repairs on radial and horizontal tears. All-inside meniscus repair compares favorably to inside-out repair of vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle tears and continues to increase in popularity. Both capsular based and meniscal based repairs can be used to repair a variety of tear patterns. While biomechanical results are encouraging, further research on the clinical outcomes of meniscal based repairs is needed to elucidate the role of these techniques in the future.

Biomechanical comparison of vertical suture techniques for repairing radial meniscus tear

Purpose

The aim of this study was to (1) develop suture techniques in repairing radial meniscal tear; (2) to compare the biomechanical properties of the proposed repair techniques with the conventional double horizontal technique.

Methods

Thirty-six fresh-frozen porcine medial menisci were randomly assigned into four groups and a complete tear was made at the midline of each meniscus. The menisci were subsequently repaired using four different repair techniques: double vertical (DV), double vertical cross (DVX), hybrid composing one vertical and one horizontal stitch, and conventional double horizontal (DH) suture technique with suturing parallel to the tibia plateau. The conventional double horizontal group was the control. The repaired menisci were subjected to cyclic loading followed by the load to failure testing. Gap formation and strength were measured, stiffness was calculated, and mode of failure was recorded.

Results

Group differences in gap formation were not statistically significant at 100 cycles (p = .42), 300 cycles (p = .68), and 500 cycles (p = .70). A trend was found toward higher load to failure in DVX (276.8 N, p < .001), DV (241.5 N, p < .001), and Hybrid (237.6 N, p < .001) compared with DH (148.5 N). Stiffness was also higher in DVX (60.7 N/mm, p < .001), DV (55.3 N/mm, p < .01), and Hybrid (52.1 N/mm, p < .01), than DH group (30.5 N/mm). Tissue failure was the only failure mode observed in all specimens.

Conclusion

Our two proposed vertical suture techniques, as well as the double vertical technique, had superior biomechanical properties than the conventional technique as demonstrated by higher stiffness and higher strength.