Cargando…

Biomechanical Comparison of Parallel and Crossed Suture Repair for Longitudinal Meniscus Tears

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal meniscus tears are commonly encountered in clinical practice. Meniscus repair devices have been previously tested and presented; however, prior studies have not evaluated repair construct designs head to head. This study compared a new-generation meniscus repair device, Spee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Milchteim, Charles, Branch, Eric A., Maughon, Ty, Hughey, Jay, Anz, Adam W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2016
Materias:
52
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27104209
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116640263
_version_ 1782426421066465280
author Milchteim, Charles
Branch, Eric A.
Maughon, Ty
Hughey, Jay
Anz, Adam W.
author_facet Milchteim, Charles
Branch, Eric A.
Maughon, Ty
Hughey, Jay
Anz, Adam W.
author_sort Milchteim, Charles
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Longitudinal meniscus tears are commonly encountered in clinical practice. Meniscus repair devices have been previously tested and presented; however, prior studies have not evaluated repair construct designs head to head. This study compared a new-generation meniscus repair device, SpeedCinch, with a similar established device, Fast-Fix 360, and a parallel repair construct to a crossed construct. Both devices utilize self-adjusting No. 2-0 ultra–high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and 2 polyether ether ketone (PEEK) anchors. HYPOTHESIS: Crossed suture repair constructs have higher failure loads and stiffness compared with simple parallel constructs. The newer repair device would exhibit similar performance to an established device. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Sutures were placed in an open fashion into the body and posterior horn regions of the medial and lateral menisci in 16 cadaveric knees. Evaluation of 2 repair devices and 2 repair constructs created 4 groups: 2 parallel vertical sutures created with the Fast-Fix 360 (2PFF), 2 crossed vertical sutures created with the Fast-Fix 360 (2XFF), 2 parallel vertical sutures created with the SpeedCinch (2PSC), and 2 crossed vertical sutures created with the SpeedCinch (2XSC). After open placement of the repair construct, each meniscus was explanted and tested to failure on a uniaxial material testing machine. All data were checked for normality of distribution, and 1-way analysis of variance by ranks was chosen to evaluate for statistical significance of maximum failure load and stiffness between groups. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: The mean maximum failure loads ± 95% CI (range) were 89.6 ± 16.3 N (125.7-47.8 N) (2PFF), 72.1 ± 11.7 N (103.4-47.6 N) (2XFF), 71.9 ± 15.5 N (109.4-41.3 N) (2PSC), and 79.5 ± 25.4 N (119.1-30.9 N) (2XSC). Interconstruct comparison revealed no statistical difference between all 4 constructs regarding maximum failure loads (P = .49). Stiffness values were also similar, with no statistical difference on comparison (P = .28). CONCLUSION: Both devices in the current study had similar failure load and stiffness when 2 vertical or 2 crossed sutures were tested in cadaveric human menisci. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Simple parallel vertical sutures perform similarly to crossed suture patterns at the time of implantation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4827117
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48271172016-04-21 Biomechanical Comparison of Parallel and Crossed Suture Repair for Longitudinal Meniscus Tears Milchteim, Charles Branch, Eric A. Maughon, Ty Hughey, Jay Anz, Adam W. Orthop J Sports Med 52 BACKGROUND: Longitudinal meniscus tears are commonly encountered in clinical practice. Meniscus repair devices have been previously tested and presented; however, prior studies have not evaluated repair construct designs head to head. This study compared a new-generation meniscus repair device, SpeedCinch, with a similar established device, Fast-Fix 360, and a parallel repair construct to a crossed construct. Both devices utilize self-adjusting No. 2-0 ultra–high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and 2 polyether ether ketone (PEEK) anchors. HYPOTHESIS: Crossed suture repair constructs have higher failure loads and stiffness compared with simple parallel constructs. The newer repair device would exhibit similar performance to an established device. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Sutures were placed in an open fashion into the body and posterior horn regions of the medial and lateral menisci in 16 cadaveric knees. Evaluation of 2 repair devices and 2 repair constructs created 4 groups: 2 parallel vertical sutures created with the Fast-Fix 360 (2PFF), 2 crossed vertical sutures created with the Fast-Fix 360 (2XFF), 2 parallel vertical sutures created with the SpeedCinch (2PSC), and 2 crossed vertical sutures created with the SpeedCinch (2XSC). After open placement of the repair construct, each meniscus was explanted and tested to failure on a uniaxial material testing machine. All data were checked for normality of distribution, and 1-way analysis of variance by ranks was chosen to evaluate for statistical significance of maximum failure load and stiffness between groups. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: The mean maximum failure loads ± 95% CI (range) were 89.6 ± 16.3 N (125.7-47.8 N) (2PFF), 72.1 ± 11.7 N (103.4-47.6 N) (2XFF), 71.9 ± 15.5 N (109.4-41.3 N) (2PSC), and 79.5 ± 25.4 N (119.1-30.9 N) (2XSC). Interconstruct comparison revealed no statistical difference between all 4 constructs regarding maximum failure loads (P = .49). Stiffness values were also similar, with no statistical difference on comparison (P = .28). CONCLUSION: Both devices in the current study had similar failure load and stiffness when 2 vertical or 2 crossed sutures were tested in cadaveric human menisci. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Simple parallel vertical sutures perform similarly to crossed suture patterns at the time of implantation. SAGE Publications 2016-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4827117/ /pubmed/27104209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116640263 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle 52
Milchteim, Charles
Branch, Eric A.
Maughon, Ty
Hughey, Jay
Anz, Adam W.
Biomechanical Comparison of Parallel and Crossed Suture Repair for Longitudinal Meniscus Tears
title Biomechanical Comparison of Parallel and Crossed Suture Repair for Longitudinal Meniscus Tears
title_full Biomechanical Comparison of Parallel and Crossed Suture Repair for Longitudinal Meniscus Tears
title_fullStr Biomechanical Comparison of Parallel and Crossed Suture Repair for Longitudinal Meniscus Tears
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical Comparison of Parallel and Crossed Suture Repair for Longitudinal Meniscus Tears
title_short Biomechanical Comparison of Parallel and Crossed Suture Repair for Longitudinal Meniscus Tears
title_sort biomechanical comparison of parallel and crossed suture repair for longitudinal meniscus tears
topic 52
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27104209
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967116640263
work_keys_str_mv AT milchteimcharles biomechanicalcomparisonofparallelandcrossedsuturerepairforlongitudinalmeniscustears
AT brancherica biomechanicalcomparisonofparallelandcrossedsuturerepairforlongitudinalmeniscustears
AT maughonty biomechanicalcomparisonofparallelandcrossedsuturerepairforlongitudinalmeniscustears
AT hugheyjay biomechanicalcomparisonofparallelandcrossedsuturerepairforlongitudinalmeniscustears
AT anzadamw biomechanicalcomparisonofparallelandcrossedsuturerepairforlongitudinalmeniscustears