Comparison of all-inside meniscal repair devices with matched inside-out suture repair

The management of isolated meniscal tears in skeletally immature children. An international expert consensus

PURPOSE

The prevalence and appreciation of meniscal tears in children have increased in both number and complexity. There is currently a paucity of high-quality evidence that can guide surgeons in treating skeletally immature patients with meniscal injuries. The aim of this study was to develop comprehensive recommendations for the management of isolated meniscal tears in skeletally immature children.

METHODS

An international, two-round, modified Delphi consensus was completed. Included 'experts' were identified as having an established adult knee practice, including children and either: (1) Faculty at an international paediatric knee conference, (2) Active members of complex national paediatric multi-disciplinary groups or (3) Members of faculty on recognised national/international instructional courses aimed at teaching the management of meniscal lesions to knee surgeons. The currently available literature was reviewed, and areas of poor quality, inconclusive or absent evidence were examined and formed the focus of the study. A threshold of 70% was used to define consensus for our study based on other similar Delphi consensus studies in the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 43 experts (Round 1) and 41 experts (Round 2) took part in the Delphi study, including surgeons from Europe, the United States of America and South America. 34 statements were identified exploring three main domains-clinical assessment, management and complex tears (bucket handle, discoid and radial). Following Round 1, consensus was reached on 17 (50%) statements; subsequently, after completion of Round 2, consensus was reached on 28 (82%) statements, leaving six (18%) with no consensus. The areas of no consensus included investigation of painless clicking, the most sensitive clinical test for meniscal pathology, treatment of small radial tears (less than 1/3 width), ability to reduce chronic bucket handle tears and timing of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first modified Delphi consensus that provides evidence for surgeons treating skeletally immature children with isolated meniscal tears. A valuable level of consensus was reached on the assessment and management of simple and specialist meniscal tears. These consensus statements can both inform clinical practice and be used in the development of further high-quality research studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

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.

Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears Might Not Be an Urgency: The Time to Meniscus Repair Does Not Seem to Affect the Mid-Term Outcome-A Retrospective Study of Sixty Tears with a Mean Follow-Up of 6 Years

Background: Bucket-handle meniscal tears are mostly treated arthroscopically. However, there is no clear evidence as to whether the time to surgery impacts the outcome and whether or not lesions should be treated urgently. Methods: Sixty patients were interviewed about the current status of their knee with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years (SD = 3.5). Forty-one patients underwent meniscus repair, and fifteen patients received partial resections. The primary outcome was the rate of reoperation after meniscus repair. Secondary outcomes were pain at rest and during exercise, return to sports, and Tegner and Lysholm scores. Results: The average time to surgery was 14.4 days, with no significant impact of surgical timing on the rate of reoperation. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in pain levels, return to sports, or Tegner and Lysholm scores based on the timing of surgery. Conclusions: In our cohort, the time to surgery was not a prognostic factor for the reoperation rate or postoperative outcome in repairing bucket-handle meniscal tears. Therefore, arthroscopic repair should not be performed in an emergency setting but conducted after careful planning by experienced arthroscopy surgeons. Regarding the return to sports, postoperative factors such as rehabilitation protocols or surgical techniques could be more important than the time to surgery.

Biomechanical Performance of Transtibial Pull-Out Posterior Horn Medial Meniscus Root Repair Is Improved With Knotless Adjustable Suture Anchor-Based Fixation

Background

While posterior medial meniscus root (PMMR) techniques have evolved, there remains a need to both optimize repair strength and improve resistance to cyclic loading.

Hypothesis

Adjustable tensioning would lead to higher initial repair strength and reduce displacement with cyclic loading compared with previously described transtibial pull-out repair (TPOR) fixation techniques.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

A total of 56 porcine medial menisci were used. Eight intact specimens served as a control for the native meniscus. For the others, PMMR tears were created and repaired with 6 different TPOR techniques (8 in each group). Fixed PMMR repairs were executed using 4 different suture techniques (two No. 2 cinch sutures, two cinch tapes, two No. 2 simple sutures, and two No. 2 sutures in a Mason-Allen configuration) all tied over a cortical button. Adjustable PMMR repairs using Mason-Allen sutures were fixed with an adjustable soft tissue anchor fixation tensioned at either 80 N or 120 N. The initial force, stiffness, and relief displacement of the repairs were measured after fixation. Repair constructs were then cyclically loaded, with cyclic displacement and stiffness measured after 1000 cycles. Finally, the specimens were pulled to failure.

Results

The PMMR repaired with the 2 cinch sutures fixed technique afforded the lowest (P < .001) initial repair load, stiffness, and relief displacement. The adjustable PMMR repairs achieved a higher initial repair load (P < .001) and relief displacement (P < .001) than all fixed repairs. The 2 cinch sutures fixed technique showed an overall higher cyclic displacement (P < .028) and was completely loose compared with the native meniscus functional zone. Repairs with adjustable intratunnel fixation showed displacement with cyclic loading similar to the native meniscus. With cyclic loading, the Mason-Allen adjustable repair with 120 N of tension showed less displacement (P < .016) than all fixed repairs and a stiffness comparable to the fixed Mason-Allen repair. The fixed Mason-Allen technique demonstrated a higher ultimate load (P < .007) than the adjustable Mason-Allen techniques. All repairs were less stiff, with lower ultimate failure loads, than the native meniscus root attachment (P < .0001).

Conclusion

Adjustable TPOR led to considerably higher initial repair load and relief displacement than other conventional fixed repairs and restricted cyclic displacement to match the native meniscus function. However, the ultimate failure load of the adjustable devices was lower than that of a Mason-Allen construct tied over a cortical button. All repair techniques had a significantly lower load to failure than the native meniscus root.

Clinical Relevance

Knotless adjustable PMMR repair based on soft anchor fixation results in higher tissue compression and less displacement, but the overall clinical significance on healing rates remains unclear.

Biomechanical Comparison of All-Suture, All-Inside Meniscus Repair Devices in a Human Cadaveric Meniscus Model

OBJECTIVE

Newer all-suture, all-inside meniscus repair devices utilize soft suture anchors. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of 4 meniscus repair devices in human cadaver menisci: the JuggerStitch (all-suture, all-inside), the FiberStitch (all-suture, all-inside), a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) all-inside, and an inside-out device.

DESIGN

Forty human cadaver menisci were tested after creating 20 mm longitudinal tears in the posterior meniscus. Each knee was randomized to 1 of 4 meniscus repair groups: JuggerStitch (all-suture, all-inside), FiberStitch (all-suture, all-inside), FAST-FIX 360 (PEEK-based anchor all-inside), and inside-out (with BroadbandTM tape meniscus needles). For each meniscus, 2 devices were used to prepare vertical mattress repair construct. The specimens were tested by pre-conditioning 20 cycles between 5 N and 30 N and then the tear diastasis was measured, followed by distraction to failure phase after imposing a displacement at a rate of 0.5 mm/s.

RESULTS

Ten menisci were tested in each of the 4 groups. After pre-conditioning, there was no significant difference in the gap formation among groups (P = 0.212). The average failure load for the JuggerStitch, FiberStitch, PEEK all-inside, and inside-out was 384 N, 311 N, 207 N, and 261 N, respectively, with a significant difference between groups (P = 0.034). Post hoc analysis showed the JuggerStitch failure load was higher than the PEEK all-inside and inside-out (P = 0.005, and P = 0.045, respectively). There was no significant difference between the failure load of the JuggerStitch and FiberStitch (P = 0.225).

CONCLUSION

The JuggerStitch all-suture device, FiberStitch all-suture device, PEEK all-inside, and inside-out devices have similar biomechanical properties for gapping and stiffness. The JuggerStitch all-suture, all-inside device has superior failure load compared with the PEEK all-inside and inside-out repair for longitudinal meniscus tear repair.

Primary Fixation and Cyclic Performance of Single-Stitch All-Inside and Inside-Out Meniscal Devices for Repairing Vertical Longitudinal Meniscal Tears

BACKGROUND

Primary device fixation and the resistance against gap formation during repetitive loading influence the quality of meniscal repair. There are limited biomechanical data comparing primary tensioning and cyclic behavior of all-inside versus inside-out repair.

HYPOTHESIS

All-inside devices provide higher initial load on the meniscal repair than inside-out fixation, and stiffer constructs show higher resistance against gap formation during cyclic loading.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

In total, 60 longitudinal bucket-handle tears in human cadaveric menisci were created and repaired with a single stitch and randomly assigned to 4 all-inside groups (TrueSpan, FastFix 360, Stryker AIR, FiberStich) and 2 inside-out groups (suture repair [IO-S], suture tape [IO-ST]). Residual load after repair tensioning (50 N) and relief displacement were measured. Constructs underwent cyclic loading between 2 and 20 N over 500 cycles (0.75 Hz) with cyclic stiffness, gap formation, and final peak elongation measured. Ultimate load and stiffness were analyzed during pull to failure (3.15 mm/s).

RESULTS

All-inside repair demonstrated significantly higher primary fixation strength than inside-out repair. The significantly highest load (mean ± SD; 20.1 ± 0.9 N; P < .037) and relief displacement (-2.40 ± 0.32 mm; P < .03) were for the knotless soft anchoring FiberStich group. The lowest initial load (9.0 ± 1.5 N; P < .001) and relief displacement (-1.39 ± 0.26 mm; P < .045) were for the IO-S repair group. The final gap formation (500th cycle) of FiberStich (0.75 ± 0.37 mm; P < .02) was significantly smaller than others and that of the IO-S (1.47 ± 0.33 mm; P < .045) significantly larger. The construct stiffness of the FiberStich and IO-ST groups was significantly greater at the end of cyclic testing (16.7 ± 0.80 and 15.5 ± 1.42 N/mm; P < .042, respectively) and ultimate failure testing (23.4 ± 3.6 and 20.6 ± 2.3 N/mm; P < .005). The FastFix 360 (86.4 ± 4.8 N) and Stryker AIR (84.4 ± 4.6 N) groups failed at a significantly lower load than the IO-S group (P < .02) with loss of anchor support. The FiberStich (146.8 ± 23.4 N), TrueSpan (142.0 ± 17.8 N), and IO-ST (139.4 ± 7.3 N) groups failed at significantly higher loads (P < .02) due to suture tearing.

CONCLUSION

Overall, primary fixation strength of inside-out meniscal repair was significantly lower than all-inside repair in this cadaveric tissue model. Although absolute differences among groups were small, meniscal repairs with higher construct stiffness (IO-ST, FiberStich) demonstrated increased resistance against gap formation and failure load.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Knotless single-stitch all-inside meniscal repair with a soft anchor resulted in less gapping, but the overall clinical significance on healing rates remains unclear.

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

Background:

Cheese-wiring, the suture that cuts through the meniscus, is a well-known issue in meniscal repair. So far, contributing factors are neither fully understood nor sufficiently studied.

Hypothesis/Purpose:

To investigate whether the construct stiffness of repair sutures and devices correlates with suture cut-through (cheese-wiring) during load-to-failure testing.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

In 131 porcine menisci, longitudinal bucket-handle tears were repaired using either inside-out sutures (n = 66; No. 0 Ultrabraid, 2-0 Orthocord, 2-0 FiberWire, and 2-0 Ethibond) or all-inside devices (n = 65; FastFix360, Omnispan, and Meniscal Cinch). After cyclic loading, load-to-failure testing was performed. The mode of failure and construct stiffness were recorded. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to define the optimal stiffness threshold for predicting meniscal repair failure by cheese-wiring. The 2-tailed t test and analysis of variance were used to test significance.

Results:

Loss of suture fixation was the most common mode of failure in all specimens (58%), except for the Omnispan, which failed most commonly because of anchor pull-through. The Omnispan demonstrated the highest construct stiffness (30.8 ± 3.5 N/mm), whereas the Meniscal Cinch (18.0 ± 8.8 N/mm) and Ethibond (19.4 ± 7.8 N/mm) demonstrated the lowest construct stiffness. The Omnispan showed significantly higher stiffness compared with the Meniscal Cinch (P < .001) and Ethibond (P = .02), whereas the stiffness of the Meniscal Cinch was significantly lower compared with that of the FiberWire (P = .01), Ultrabraid (P = .04), and FastFix360 (P = .03). While meniscal repair with a high construct stiffness more often failed by cheese-wiring, meniscal repair with a lower stiffness failed by loss of suture fixation, knot slippage, or anchor pull-through. Meniscal repair with a stiffness >26.5 N/mm had a 3.6 times higher risk of failure due to cheese-wiring during load-to-failure testing (95% CI, 1.4-8.2; P < .0001).

Conclusion:

Meniscal repair using inside-out sutures and all-inside devices with a higher construct stiffness (>26.5 N/mm) was more likely to fail through suture cut-through (cheese-wiring) than that with a lower stiffness (≤26.5 N/mm).

Clinical Relevance:

This is the first study investigating the impact of construct stiffness on meniscal repair failure by suture cut-through (cheese-wiring).

Examining Techniques for Treatment of Medial Meniscal Ramp Lesions During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the clinical outcomes and adverse events among different techniques for treatment of medial meniscal ramp lesions performed in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, Web of Science, and Medline databases were searched for studies examining clinical outcomes after surgical treatment of ramp lesions. Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: (1) evaluation of the outcome of surgical repair of meniscal ramp lesions, (2) injuries associated with ACL tears, (3) minimum 6-month follow up, (4) publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and (5) English language or translation readily available.

RESULTS

Seven studies met inclusion criteria (485 patients; mean age 27.1 years [range 12 to 59]; mean follow-up 26.9 months [range 8 to 40]). Two all-inside techniques (suture-hook and an all-inside meniscus repair device) in addition to abrasion and trephination alone were analyzed. Each technique demonstrated significant increases in postoperative Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, reaching the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for each patient reported outcome. Incomplete healing was documented in 12.1% to 12.9% of cases in which the tear was not repaired at the time of ACL reconstruction, 2.3% to 11.7% in cases using the suture-hook for repair, and 10.8% to 15% in the all-inside meniscus repair device group.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated that several approaches used to treat medial meniscal ramp lesions associated with ACL tears lead to positive clinical outcomes. Small, stable tears <2 cm in size may be managed with debridement alone. For larger, more unstable lesions, an all-inside approach has demonstrated positive clinical outcomes. Prospective trials are needed to determine the best management for meniscal ramp lesions. Additionally, further research is needed to better understand how to minimize the risk of technique-related complications (e.g., improper implant deployment).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level II, III, and IV studies.

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.

Three anchor concepts for rotator cuff repair in standardized physiological and osteoporotic bone: a biomechanical study

BACKGROUND

Previous biomechanical studies used single-pull destructive tests in line with the anchor and are limited by a great variability of bone density of cadaver samples. To overcome these limitations, a more physiological test setting was provided using titanium, bioresorbable, and all-suture anchors.

METHODS

In this controlled laboratory study, 3 anchor constructs were divided into 2 groups: physiological and osteoporotic. Sixty standardized artificial bone specimens (=10 for each anchor in each group) were used for biomechanical testing. The anchors were inserted at a 45° angle as during surgery. Cyclic loading for 1000 cycles followed by ultimate load-to-failure (ULTF) testing was performed. Elongation, ultimate load at failure, and the mode of failure were noted.

RESULTS

In the physiological group, the ULTF for the all-suture anchor (mean [standard deviation], 632.9 [96.8 N]) was found to be significantly higher than for the other anchors (titanium, 497.1 [50.5] N, and bioresorbable, 322.4 [3.1 N], P < .0001). The titanium anchor showed a significantly higher ULTF than the bioresorbable anchor (P < .0001). In the osteoporotic group, the all-suture anchor again showed a higher ULTF compared to the bioresorbable anchor (500.9 [50.6] N vs. 315.1 [11.3] N, P < .0001). In the osteoporotic group, cyclic loading revealed a higher elongation after 1000 loading cycles for the bioresorbable (0.40 [0.12] mm) compared to the titanium (0.22 [0.11] mm; P = .01) as well as the all-suture anchor (0.19 [0.15] mm, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Regarding ULTF, the all-suture anchor outperformed the other anchors in physiological bone, but in osteoporotic bone, significance was reached only compared to the bioresorbable anchor. Although cyclic loading revealed significant differences, these might not be clinically relevant.

Arthroscopically Repaired Bucket-Handle Meniscus Tears: Patient Demographics, Postoperative Outcomes, and a Comparison of Success and Failure Cases

OBJECTIVE

To define patient demographics, preoperative, and intraoperative surgical variables associated with successful or failed repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears.

DESIGN

All patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a bucket-handle meniscus tear at a single institution between May 2011 and July 2016 with minimum 6-month follow-up were retrospectively identified. Patient demographic, preoperative (including imaging), and operative variables were collected and evaluated. A Kaplan-Meier curve was generated to demonstrate meniscus repair survivorship.

RESULTS

In total, 75 patients (78 knees) with an average age of 26.53 ± 10.67 years met inclusion criteria. The average follow-up was 23.41 ± 16.43 months. Fifteen knees (19.2%) suffered re-tear of the repaired meniscus at an average 12.24 ± 9.50 months postoperatively. Survival analysis demonstrated 93.6% survival at 6 months, 84.6% survival at 1 year, 78.4% survival at 2 years, and 69.9% survival at 3 years. There was significant improvement from baseline to time of final follow-up in all patient-reported outcome (P < 0.05) except Marx score (P = 0.933) and SF-12 Mental Subscale (P = 0.807). The absence of other knee pathology (including ligament tear, contralateral compartment meniscal tear, or cartilage lesions) noted intraoperatively was the only variable significantly associated with repair failure (P = 0.024). Concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (vs. no concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction) trended toward significance (P = 0.059) as a factor associated with successful repair.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of the absence of other knee pathology (including ligament tear, contralateral compartment meniscal tear, or cartilage lesions) noted intraoperatively, no other variables were significantly associated with re-tear. The results are relatively durable with 84.6% survival at 1 year. Surgeons should attempt meniscal repair when presented with a bucket-handle tear.

The new LassoLoop360° technique for biomechanically superior tissue grip

PURPOSE

Suprapectoral tenodesis is a frequently used technique for treating pathologies of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHBB) tendon. However, so far, no Gold Standard treatment exist. Hence, the arthroscopic LassoLoop360 (LL360) technique is introduced aiming to provide secure fixation and improved biomechanical properties. It was hypothesized, that the LL360 technique would show superior biomechanical response to cyclic loading and ultimate load-to-failure testing compared to the commonly used simple Lasso Loop (SLL).

METHODS

Twenty-two porcine superficial flexor digitorum tendons were prepared using a No. 2 suture according to either the SLL or the LL360 technique. Displacement after cyclic loading (1.000 cycles) between 5 and 30 N, ultimate load-to-failure (ULTF), mode of failure as well as the construct stiffness were tested.

RESULTS

Significantly less displacement was found in the LL360 group (SLL 2.25 ± 0.51 mm; LL360 1.67 ± 0.37 mm; p = 0.01). Ultimate Load to Failure was significantly higher in the LL360 (168.6 ± 29.6 N) as compared to the SLL (124.1 ± 25.8 N, p = 0.02). The LL360 also revealed a significant higher stiffness compared to the SLL (SLL 13.1 ± 0.9 N/mm vs. LL360 19.1 ± 1.0 N/mm, p < 0.001). The most common mode of failure was the suture cutting through the tendon, with a significantly less suture cutting through for the LL360 compared with the SLL (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The LassoLoop360-technique offers superior biomechanical characteristics regarding the tendon-suture-interface compared to the SLL. In the initial healing phase, the suture-tendon-interface is the most vulnerable part of the tendon-suture-anchor construct, the aim of this new technique is to reduce this weakest part of the chain (Ponce et al., Am J Sports Med 39:188-194, 2011). This technique may therefore be beneficial for arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis at the entrance of the bicipital groove.

Evaluation of Midterm Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Arthroscopically Repaired Vertical Longitudinal and Bucket-Handle Lateral Meniscal Tears

Background:

Lateral meniscal tears in the stable knee are rare. There are few comparative studies evaluating functional and radiological outcomes of vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle lateral meniscal tears.

Purpose:

To evaluate the midterm clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopically repaired traumatic vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle lateral meniscal tears.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A total of 43 full-thickness lateral meniscal repairs, including 22 (51.2%) for vertical longitudinal tears and 21 (48.8%) for bucket-handle tears, were evaluated. A clinical assessment was performed according to the Barrett criteria, and patient outcomes were measured with the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, and overall satisfaction scale. Magnetic resonance imaging was used as the radiological re-examination method preoperatively and at final follow-up. A subgroup analysis examining isolated repair versus repair with concurrent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction was performed.

Results:

The mean follow-up period was 63.2 months (range, 24-86 months). Based on clinical and radiological outcomes, 38 of the 43 repairs (88.3%) were successful, and the remaining 5 (11.6%) cases were considered to be failures. Overall, the combined results for both groups demonstrated an improvement in the Lysholm score, Tegner score, and patient satisfaction. There was no significant difference in the postoperative Lysholm score (91.4 vs 87.0, respectively; P = .223), Tegner score (5.4 vs 5.5, respectively; P = .872), or patient satisfaction (7.2 vs 7.4, respectively; P = .624) between bucket-handle repair and vertical longitudinal repair. The subgroup analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome scores for isolated repair versus repair with concurrent ACL reconstruction. Smoking was identified as a risk factor for repair failure.

Conclusion:

Comparable clinical and radiological outcomes were obtained after vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle lateral meniscal repairs using the all-inside or hybrid suture technique with different suture configurations, regardless of whether ACL reconstruction was performed. Smoking was identified as a risk factor for failure.

Knee Meniscus Injuries: Common Problems and Solutions

The rates of arthroscopic meniscus repair continue to increase with excellent reported outcomes. Complications, sometimes catastrophic, following meniscus repair may occur. The rate of postoperative complications may be reduced by adequate diagnosis, appropriate patient selection, meniscus repair selection, surgical techniques, and postoperative management. When complications occur, the provider must identify and take steps to rectify as well as prevent further complications from occurring. The purpose of this article is to detail the common diagnostic, technical, and postoperative pitfalls that may result in poor patient outcomes.

Rehabilitation following meniscal repair: a systematic review

Objective

To review existing biomechanical and clinical evidence regarding postoperative weight-bearing and range of motion restrictions for patients following meniscal repair surgery.

Methods and data sources

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline, we searched MEDLINE using following search strategy: ((((“Weight-Bearing/physiology”[Mesh]) OR “Range of Motion, Articular”[Mesh]) OR “Rehabilitation”[Mesh])) AND (“Menisci, Tibial”[Mesh]). Additional articles were derived from previous reviews. Eligible studies were published in English and reported a rehabilitation protocol following meniscal repair on human. We summarised rehabilitation protocols and patients’ outcome among original studies.

Results

Seventeen clinical studies were included in this systematic review. There was wide variation in rehabilitation protocols among clinical studies. Biomechanical evidence from small cadaveric studies suggests that higher degrees of knee flexion and weight-bearing may be safe following meniscal repair and may not compromise the repair. An accelerated protocol with immediate weight-bearing at tolerance and early motion to non-weight-bearing with immobilising up to 6 weeks postoperatively is reported. Accelerated rehabilitation protocols are not associated with higher failure rates following meniscal repair.

Conclusions

There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal postoperative protocol following meniscal repair. Small clinical studies support rehabilitation protocols that allow early motion. Additional studies are needed to better clarify the interplay between tear type, repair method and optimal rehabilitation protocol.

Novel flat and wide meniscal repair material improves the ultimate load of knot breakage in a porcine trans-capsular meniscal repair model

Background

In the meniscal repair procedures, a high ultimate load capacity and low cyclic creep at the repair site are favorable and lead to good biological incorporation of the tear site after surgery. Previous biomechanical tensile tests of the meniscal sutures have identified the suture knot as the weakest point. We hypothesized that the strength of a suture knot depends on the suture shape, and therefore, we compared three differently shaped suture materials composed of the same material and quantity per length. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a novel flat and wide repair material (FWRM), which consists of braided multi-threads that are cross-sectionally flat and wide, improves the ultimate load of knot breakage in a biomechanical experiment using a porcine trans-capsular meniscal repair model.

Methods

Eighteen fresh-frozen porcine knees (n = 6 in each group) were used. A longitudinal tear in the middle segment of the medial meniscus was created and repaired with a trans-capsular inside-out method using the following suture materials: No. 2–0 braided polyester conventional suture, hollow suture, and FWRM. After the separation of the inner segment of the meniscus with leaving, the suture stability of the repaired menisci was biomechanically analyzed with a video camera system for widening after a cyclic load between 5 and 20 N was applied 300 times. Ultimate failure load and stiffness at 5 mm/ min were also analyzed.

Results

We found no significant difference in suture widening after cyclic load tests [conventional suture, mean 0.51 mm (S.D. 0.39 mm); hollow suture, mean 0.23 mm (S.D. 0.11 mm); and FWRM, mean 0.54 mm (S.D. 0.08 mm)]. The failure mode in all specimens was knot breakage. Compared with those of the other groups, the ultimate failure load of FWRM was statistically significantly higher in the load-to-failure tests (conventional suture, mean 58.8 N [S.D. 8.25 N]; hollow suture, mean 79.4 N [S.D. 10.2 N]; and FWRM, mean 97.4 N [S.D. 3.65 N]; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

FWRM improves the ultimate load of knot breakage without altering stability. This material may contribute to safe and stable meniscus repair.

A Contact Pressure Analysis Comparing an All-Inside and Inside-Out Surgical Repair Technique for Bucket-Handle Medial Meniscus Tears

PURPOSE

To directly compare effectiveness of the inside-out and all-inside medial meniscal repair techniques in restoring native contact area and contact pressure across the medial tibial plateau at multiple knee flexion angles.

METHODS

Twelve male, nonpaired (n = 12), fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees underwent a series of 5 consecutive states: (1) intact medial meniscus, (2) MCL tear and repair, (3) simulated bucket-handle longitudinal tear of the medial meniscus, (4) inside-out meniscal repair, and (5) all-inside meniscal repair. Knees were loaded with a 1,000-N axial compressive force at 5 knee flexion angles (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°), and contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure were calculated using thin film pressure sensors.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the inside-out and all-inside repair techniques at any flexion angle for contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure (all P > .791). Compared with the torn meniscus state, inside-out and all-inside repair techniques resulted in increased contact area at all flexion angles (all P < .005 and all P < .037, respectively), decreased mean contact pressure at all flexion angles (all P < .007 and all P < .001, respectively) except for 0° (P = .097 and P = .39, respectively), and decreased peak contact pressure at all flexion angles (all P < .001, all P < .001, respectively) except for 0° (P = .080 and P = .544, respectively). However, there were significant differences in contact area and peak contact pressure between the intact state and inside-out technique at angles ≥45° (all P < .014 and all P < .032, respectively). Additionally, there were significant differences between the intact state and all-inside technique in contact area at 60° and 90° and peak contact pressure at 90° (both P < .005 and P = .004, respectively). Median values of intact contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure over the tested flexion angles ranged from 498 to 561 mm², 786 to 997 N/mm², and 1,990 to 2,215 N/mm², respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure were not significantly different between the all-inside and inside-out repair techniques at any tested flexion angle. Both techniques adequately restored native meniscus biomechanics near an intact level.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

An all-inside repair technique provided similar, native-state-restoring contact mechanics compared with an inside-out repair technique for the treatment of displaced bucket-handle tears of the medial meniscus. Thus, both techniques may adequately decrease the likelihood of cartilage degeneration.

Biomechanical testing of transcapsular meniscal repair

Background

All of previous biomechanical studies on meniscal repair have examined the meniscus itself without synovial membrane and capsule, although in the clinical setting, the meniscal repair is generally performed including capsule. Therefore, biomechanical properties of transcapsular meniscal repair are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to clarify the biomechanical properties of transcapsular meniscal repair.

Methods

In 70 porcine femur–medial meniscus–tibia complexes with capsules, longitudinal meniscal tears were repaired using different suture techniques (inside-out or all-inside technique), suture methods (vertical or horizontal methods), and numbers of sutures (single or double). A cyclic loading test between 5 and 20 N for 300 cycles was performed followed by a load-to-failure test.

Results

Tears repaired by the all-inside technique presented significantly larger widening (0.88 ± 0.38 mm) than those by the inside-out technique (0.51 ± 0.39 mm) during the cyclic loading test (P = 0.035). The horizontal suture presented significantly lower ultimate failure load (62.5 ± 15.5 N) in the all-inside technique than in the vertical suture (79.7 ± 13.0 N; P = 0.018). The stacked suture had a significantly higher failure load (104.6 ± 12.5 N) than the parallel suture (83.3 ± 12.6 N; P = 0.001). Furthermore, the double suture presented significantly higher failure loads (83.3 ± 12.6 N and 104.6 ± 20.4 N) than the single suture with both inside-out (58.8 ± 8.3 N; P = 0.001) and all-inside (79.7 ± 13.0 N; P = 0.022) techniques.

Conclusions

Upon comparison of the suture techniques, the inside-out technique provided a more stable fixation at the repair site than the all-inside technique during the cyclic test. Among the suture methods, the vertical suture had more desirable biomechanical properties than the horizontal suture as demonstrated by smaller widening during the cyclic test and the larger load to failure. The stacked suture created a stronger fixation than the parallel suture. In terms of the number of sutures, the double suture had superior biomechanical properties compared with the single suture.

Repair of the Posterior Third of the Meniscus During Meniscus Allograft Transplantation: Conventional Inside-Out Repair Versus FasT-Fix All-Inside Repair

PURPOSE

To compare conventional inside-out (IO) repair and all-inside (AI) repair for the posterior third of the meniscus during meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT).

METHODS

Among the 64 enrolled patients, 31 patients underwent MAT with conventional IO repair, and 33 patients underwent MAT with AI repair using the FasT-Fix instrument for the posterior third of the meniscus allograft. All of the patients were retrospectively evaluated through clinical assessment at the last follow-up (54.3 months in the IO group and 55.4 months in the AI group) and through magnetic resonance imaging assessment for meniscal extrusion at 1 year postoperatively. Thirty patients (15 in each group) were evaluated through second-look arthroscopy at 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the mean Lysholm score (91.3 in the IO group and 92.3 in the AI group; P = .358) or the mean Tegner activity scale (7.1 in each group; P = .885) between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in the mean meniscal extrusion (2.6 mm in the IO group and 2.8 mm in the AI group; P = .454), relative percentage of extrusion value (25.6% in the IO group and 24.7% in the AI group; P = .721), or meniscal healing on second-look arthroscopy (P = .796) between the 2 groups. The difference in operative time between the 2 groups was found to be statistically significant (169.9 minutes in the IO group and 123.3 minutes in the AI group; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our comparative study on the different techniques for posterior repair of meniscus allograft suggested that AI posterior repair using FasT-Fix could be an alternative method to conventional IO repair as it gives a similar postoperative result and requires a shorter operative time.

Biomechanical evaluation of an all-inside suture-based device for repairing longitudinal meniscal tears

PURPOSE

A device for all-inside suture-based meniscal repairs has been introduced (NovoStitch; Ceterix, Menlo Park, CA) that passes the suture vertically through the meniscus, thereby encircling the tear, and does not require an additional incision or extra-capsular anchors. Our aim was to compare this all-inside suture-based repair with an inside-out suture repair and an all-inside anchor-based repair (FasT-Fix 360°; Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA).

METHODS

Longitudinal tears were created in 36 fresh-frozen porcine menisci. Repairs were performed using an all-inside suture-based meniscal repair device, an all-inside anchor-based repair, and an inside-out suture repair. They were tested with cyclic loading and load-to-failure testing. The displacement, response to cyclic loading (100, 300, and 500 cycles), and mode of failure were recorded. The stiffness of the constructs was calculated as well.

RESULTS

The all-inside suture-based repairs and the inside-out repairs showed significantly higher loads to failure than the all-inside anchor-based repairs. The stiffness values for the 3 repairs were not different. There were no differences in initial displacement. After 100, 300, and 500 cycles, the inside-out repair had higher gap formation (displacement) than the other 2 groups. Suture failure was the predominant mode of failure across all repair techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The all-inside suture-based repairs and inside-out repairs did not exhibit different load-to-failure values. In addition, the all-inside suture-based repairs and the all-inside anchor-based repairs did not exhibit different displacement values during cyclic loading.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

When addressing a longitudinal meniscal tear, surgeons should consider biomechanical data of various repair devices and techniques in their decision-making process to maximize the mechanical strength and healing probability of the repair.

Analysis of a new all-inside versus inside-out technique for repairing radial meniscal tears

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare gap formation, strength, and stiffness of repaired radial tears of the meniscus treated using a new all-inside technique versus a traditional inside-out suture technique.

METHODS

Radial tears were created in 36 fresh-frozen porcine menisci. Repairs were performed using a novel all-inside suture-based meniscal repair device or an inside-out technique. The repairs were tested for cyclic loading and load to failure. The displacement, response to cyclic loading (100, 300, and 500 cycles), and mode of failure were recorded, and the construct's stiffness was calculated.

RESULTS

The all-inside repairs using the novel device resulted in a significantly lower displacement (gap formation) after 100, 300, and 500 cycles (P = .002, P = .001, and P = .001, respectively). The ultimate load to failure was significantly greater for the all-inside repairs (111.61 N v 95.01 N; P = .03). The all-inside repairs showed greater stiffness (14.53 N/mm v 11.19 N/mm; P = .02). The all-inside repairs failed most often by suture breakage (suture failure). The inside-out repairs failed most commonly when the suture pulled through the tissue (tissue failure) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

For repair of radial tears of the meniscus, the vertical suture configuration created by the all-inside technique resulted in lower displacement, higher load to failure, and greater stiffness compared with the horizontal inside-out technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In a porcine specimen meniscus repair model, the biomechanical properties of a vertical all-inside technique were superior to that of a horizontal inside-out technique. Future studies of biomechanical and clinical outcomes in human meniscal repairs with this device are warranted to explore whether this repair method is valuable to clinical practice and patient outcomes.

Meta-analysis on biomechanical properties of meniscus repairs: are devices better than sutures?

PURPOSE

Meniscal repair devices have been extensively tested during the past decades as reported in the literature. Reviewing the different meniscal repair devices and sutures with their respective biomechanical properties.

METHODS

For this meta-analysis, we conducted a systematic online search using PubMed, EMBASE, CCTR, and CINAHL using the search terms Meniscus OR Meniscal AND Biomechanics AND Repair). Load-to-failure (LtF), stiffness, and cyclic outcome measures were extracted independently and in duplicate. The systematic search revealed 841 manuscripts in total. After exclusion of duplicates and irrelevant publications, 41 studies remained for final analysis. The studies were published in English and German from 1995 to 2013. Due to differing cyclic force protocols, cyclic outcomes had to be excluded.

RESULTS

Overall, sutures had a higher LtF [suture: 87.7 ± 0.3 N (weighted mean ± standard error), device: 56.3 ± 0.1 N] and stiffness (suture: 8.9 ± 0.04 N/mm, device: 8.6 ± 0.04 N/mm) than devices, both p < 0.05. In LfT testing, PDS 0 Vertical (145.0 ± 8.1 N), OrthoCord 2-0 (143.6 ± 11.3 N), and Ethibond No 0 Vertical (133.4 ± 7.7 N) were the strongest sutures and Meniscal Viper (140.9 ± 5.1 N), MaxFire Vertical (136.2 ± 11.3 N), and FasT-Fix Vertical (115.2 ± 1.6 N) were the strongest devices. Second-generation devices were significantly stronger and stiffer than first-generation devices (p < 0.001).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Suture repair remains the gold standard with a vertically oriented suture configuration showing superior LtF values compared to a horizontal configuration. Nevertheless, some meniscal repair devices have similar biomechanical properties to suture repairs. Both suture repairs and devices have a place in meniscal restoration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

None, meta-analysis of controlled laboratory studies.

The effect of inclination angle on the strength of vertical mattress configuration for meniscus repair

PURPOSE

Vertical mattress configuration is the strongest of all other configurations and the repairing devices of meniscus repair. The purpose was whether increasing the inclination angle between two strands of the vertical mattress configuration by increasing the amount of meniscus tissue captured would enhance the initial strength of the construction.

METHODS

A 2-cm long anteroposterior vertical longitudinal incision was created in two groups of bovine medial menisci. In the first group, the distance between the two vertical suture strands and the vertical horizontal sutures on the capsular side of the meniscal lesion was 2 mm (Group 1). In the second group, the distance was 5 mm (Group 2). The following repair specimens underwent cyclic loading prior to loading the failure testing. The endpoints included ultimate failure load (N), stiffness (N/mm) and cyclic displacement (mm) after the 100 cycles and the mode of failure.

RESULTS

Group 1 (2 mm) (90.7 (±19.9) N) had lower ultimate load than Group 2 (5 mm) (120.8 (±24.5)) (P < 0.05). Stiffness and displacements during the cycling were not different between the groups (n.s.). All specimens failed by suture rupture.

CONCLUSION

Increased inclination angle with increased distance between the two vertical suture strands on the capsular side of the meniscal lesion resulted in higher failure load compared to control group with lower inclination angle and distance on the capsular side.

All-inside meniscal repair devices compared with their matched inside-out vertical mattress suture repair: introducing 10,000 and 100,000 loading cycles

BACKGROUND

All-inside arthroscopic meniscal repairs are favored by most clinicians because of their lower complication rate and decreased morbidity compared with inside-out techniques. Until now, only 1000 cycles have been used for biomechanical testing.

HYPOTHESIS

All-inside meniscal repairs will show inferior biomechanical response to cyclic loading (up to 100,000 cycles) and load-to-failure testing compared with inside-out suture controls.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Bucket-handle tears in 72 porcine menisci were repaired using the Omnispan and Fast-Fix 360 (all-inside devices) and Orthocord 2-0 and Ultrabraid 2-0 sutures (matched controls). Initial displacement, displacement after cyclic loading (100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000, and 100,000 cycles) between 5 and 20 N, ultimate load to failure, and mode of failure were recorded, as well as stiffness.

RESULTS

Initial displacement and displacement after cyclic loading were not different between the groups. The Omnispan repair demonstrated the highest load-to-failure force (mean ± SD, 151.3 ± 21.5 N) and was significantly stronger than all the other constructs (Orthocord 2-0, 105.5 ± 20.4 N; Ultrabraid 2-0, 93.4 ± 22.5 N; Fast-Fix 360, 76.6 ± 14.2 N) (P < .0001 for all). The Orthocord vertical inside-out mattress repair was significantly stronger than the Fast-Fix 360 repair (P = .003). The Omnispan (30.8 ± 3.5 N/mm) showed significantly higher stiffness compared with the Ultrabraid 2-0 (22.9 ± 6.9 N/mm, P < .0001) and Fast-Fix 360 (23.7 ± 3.9 N/mm, P = .001). The predominant mode of failure was suture failure.

CONCLUSION

All-inside meniscal devices show comparable biomechanical properties compared with inside-out suture repair in cyclic loading, even after 100,000 cycles.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Eight to 10 weeks of rehabilitation might not pose a problem for all repairs in this worst-case scenario.

Meniscal repair techniques required for the surgeon performing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are a common injury treated surgically by orthopedic specialists. There is a high incidence of concurrent meniscal injury that must be recognized and appropriately treated by the surgeon. The surgeon must be prepared to address the full spectrum of meniscal injuries with complex meniscal repair techniques when performing ACL reconstruction to decrease the likelihood of reoperation or postoperative symptoms for the patient.

Short- to mid-term results of arthroscopic meniscal repair of long vertical longitudinal tears using combined cruciate and horizontal suture techniques: a retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

The purpose was to evaluate the clinical results of arthroscopic meniscal repair of long vertical longitudinal tears using combined cruciate and horizontal suture techniques.

METHODS

Single surgeon retrospective case series study. A total of 38 patients having long vertical longitudinal tears were operated using combined cruciate and horizontal suture techniques. Two patients had to undergo a meniscectomy procedure within the 1st year postoperative and those were considered failure cases; 32 patients were available for follow-up evaluation (average 4.6 years) and six were lost including the two failures. Objective IKDC, modified Lysholm knee score, SF-36 score, VAS for patients' satisfaction and VAS for pain were used for follow-up evaluation. Kellgren and Lawrence (K/L) classification of osteoarthritis was also used.

RESULTS

Successful rate was 94.1% (32 patients), while failure was 5.9% (2 patients). Objective IKDC score revealed that 27 patients had grade "A" and 5 had grade "B," while no single patient had neither grade "C" nor "D." The average modified Lysholm score was 91.3. Average SF-36 score was 88.4. The average VAS for operation satisfaction was eight. Average VAS for pain was 1.5. Preoperatively, 30 patients were classified as normal K/L classification, while two patients were K/L classification grade "1." At the time of the follow-up, 24 patients were classified as normal K/L classification, six were grade "1," two were grade "2," and thus, six had osteoarthritis progression.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic meniscal repair of long vertical longitudinal tears using combined cruciate and horizontal suture techniques is a safe surgical procedure with good clinical outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

A biomechanical evaluation of all-inside 2-stitch meniscal repair devices with matched inside-out suture repair

BACKGROUND

Many all-inside suture-based devices are currently available, including the Meniscal Cinch, FasT-Fix, Ultra FasT-Fix, RapidLoc, MaxFire, and CrossFix System. These different devices have been compared in various configurations, but to our knowledge, the Sequent meniscal repair device, which applies running sutures, has not been compared with the Ultra FasT-Fix, nor has it been compared with its suture, No. 0 Hi-Fi, using an inside-out repair technique.

PURPOSE

To assess the quality of the meniscal repair, all new devices should be compared with the gold standard: the inside-out repair. To that end, this study aims to compare the biomechanical characteristics of running sutures delivered by the Sequent meniscal repair device with 2 vertical mattress sutures applied using the Ultra FasT-Fix device and with 2 vertical mattress sutures using an inside-out repair technique with No. 0 Hi-Fi suture.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Paired (medial and lateral), fresh-frozen porcine menisci were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: Sequent (n = 17), Ultra FasT-Fix (n = 19), and No. 0 Hi-Fi inside-out repair (n = 20). Bucket-handle tears were created in all menisci and were subjected to repair according to their grouping. Once repaired, the specimens were subjected to cyclic loading (100, 300, and 500 cycles), followed by loading to failure.

RESULTS

The Sequent and Ultra FasT-Fix device repairs and the suture repair exhibited low initial displacements. The Sequent meniscal repair device demonstrated the lowest displacement in response to cyclic loading. No. 0 Hi-Fi suture yielded the highest load to failure.

CONCLUSION

With the development of the next generation of all-inside meniscal repair devices, surgeons may use these findings to select the method best suited for their patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The Sequent meniscal repair device displays the least amount of displacement during cyclic loading but has a similar failure load to other devices.

The influence of suture material on the strength of horizontal mattress suture configuration for meniscus repair

PURPOSE

Comparison of the mechanical characteristics of meniscal repair fixation using horizontal sutures and six different sutures under submaximal cyclic and load to failure test conditions may aid physicians in selecting a suture type.

METHODS

A 2-cm long anteroposterior vertical longitudinal incision was created in six groups of bovine medial menisci. Lesions were repaired using a No. 2 suture either composed of polyester or polyester and ultra high-molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), or UHMWPE and polydioxanone or pure UHMWPE. Endpoints included ultimate failure load (N), pull-out stiffness (N/mm), pull-out displacement (mm), cyclic displacement (mm) after 100cycles, after 500cycles, and mode of failure.

RESULTS

Polyester suture had lower ultimate load than all groups except the suture composed of polyester and UHMWPE (P<.05). Pure UHMWPE suture had higher ultimate failure load than sutures composed of either polyester or polyester plus UHMWPE (P<.05). Predominant failure mode was suture cutting through the meniscus for the groups except for polyester suture which failed by suture rupture.

CONCLUSION

Under cyclic loading conditions in bovine meniscus, braided polyester suture fixation provided lower initial fixation strength than fixation with various high strength sutures composed of pure UHMWPE or a combination of absorbable monofilament polydioxanone and UHMWPE, except for combination of polyester and UHMWPE sutures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Present study does not support the usage of the braided polyester sutures instead of high strength sutures composed either partially or totally of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene for the horizontal suture configuration of meniscus repair.

Magnetic resonance imaging is not suitable for interpretation of meniscal status ten years after arthroscopic repair

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the MRI features of the all-inside repaired meniscus in the long-term.

METHODS

Among 27 consecutive all-inside arthroscopic meniscal repairs, 23 patients aged 25 ± 5 years at the time of surgery were reviewed at a median follow-up of 10 ± 1 years. Retrospective clinical examinations and imaging assessments using a 1.5-T MRI after all-inside arthroscopic meniscal repair were conducted.

RESULTS

At follow-up, Lysholm and IKDC averaged 89 ± 11 and 95 ± 8, respectively. MRI examinations revealed no meniscal signal alteration in three patients (13%), a vertical signal located in the previously torn area in seven (30%), a horizontal grade 3 in nine (39%), and a complex tear (grade 4) in four (17.5%). There were no differences between medial and lateral menisci (p = 0.15), stable and stabilised knees (p = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Several abnormal vertical and/or horizontal hypersignals are still present on MRI examination ten years after arthroscopic all-inside meniscal repair. The appearance of early signs of osteoarthritis is rare, suggesting a chondroprotective effect of the repaired meniscus.

Animal models for meniscus repair and regeneration

The meniscus plays an important role in knee function and mechanics. Meniscal lesions, however, are common phenomena and this tissue is not able to achieve spontaneous successful repair, particularly in the inner avascular zone. Several animal models have been studied and proposed for testing different reparative approaches, as well as for studying regenerative methods aiming to restore the original shape and function of this structure. This review summarizes the gross anatomy, function, ultrastructure and biochemical composition of the knee meniscus in several animal models in comparison with the human meniscus. The relevance of the models is discussed from the point of view of basic research as well as of clinical translation for meniscal repair, substitution and regeneration. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of each model for various research directions are critically discussed.