Cargando…

The rebar repair for radial meniscus tears: a biomechanical comparison of a reinforced suture repair versus parallel and cross-stitch techniques

BACKGROUND: Radial meniscus tears can cause the meniscus to be completely incompetent. This serious type of meniscus tear can be difficult to repair. Techniques have been developed that juxtapose the meniscus tear edges and are able to withstand high loads. The purpose of this study was to determine...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Massey, Patrick, McClary, Kaylan, Parker, David, Barton, R. Shane, Solitro, Giovanni
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6706491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31440855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-019-0206-4
_version_ 1783445711403089920
author Massey, Patrick
McClary, Kaylan
Parker, David
Barton, R. Shane
Solitro, Giovanni
author_facet Massey, Patrick
McClary, Kaylan
Parker, David
Barton, R. Shane
Solitro, Giovanni
author_sort Massey, Patrick
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Radial meniscus tears can cause the meniscus to be completely incompetent. This serious type of meniscus tear can be difficult to repair. Techniques have been developed that juxtapose the meniscus tear edges and are able to withstand high loads. The purpose of this study was to determine the load to failure of a reinforced suture bar repair (Rebar Repair) for radial meniscus tear and compare it to the parallel suture technique and cross-stitch technique and to compare mode of failure among all three groups. The hypothesis was that the Rebar Repair will have a higher load to failure than both the parallel technique and the cross-stitch technique and that the Rebar Repair would have a lower rate of suture cutting through the meniscus. METHODS: Forty-eight menisci were tested from 24 human knee specimens, with 16 menisci in each group evenly distributed between medial and lateral menisci. Radial mid body meniscal tears were recreated and repaired with one of three inside-out techniques: the 2-parallel suture technique, 2 cross-stitch sutures, and the Rebar Repair. The specimens were cycled between 5 N to 30 N and axially loaded to failure perpendicularly across the repair site. RESULTS: The average load to failure of the parallel group, cross-stitch group and Rebar Repair was 85.5 N ± 22.0, 76.2 N ± 28.8 and 124.1 N ± 27.1 respectively. The Rebar Repair had a higher load to failure than the parallel group (p < 0.01) and cross-stitch group (p < 0.01). There was no difference in the load to failure between the cross-stitch and parallel group (p = 0.49). The failure mechanism was different when comparing the 3 groups (p < 0.01). The predominant mode of failure for both the parallel and cross-stitch group was suture cutout through the meniscus (88% and 94% respectively). The Rebar Repair failed due to suture rupture in 50% and suture cutout through the meniscus in 50%. CONCLUSION: The Rebar Repair for radial meniscus tear has a higher load to failure and a lower rate of suture cutout through the meniscus than the parallel technique and cross-stitch technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Radial meniscus tears lead to decreased hoop stresses of the meniscus and effectively a non-functional meniscus. Newer techniques may have a higher load to failure leading to more successful repairs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6706491
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67064912019-09-06 The rebar repair for radial meniscus tears: a biomechanical comparison of a reinforced suture repair versus parallel and cross-stitch techniques Massey, Patrick McClary, Kaylan Parker, David Barton, R. Shane Solitro, Giovanni J Exp Orthop Research BACKGROUND: Radial meniscus tears can cause the meniscus to be completely incompetent. This serious type of meniscus tear can be difficult to repair. Techniques have been developed that juxtapose the meniscus tear edges and are able to withstand high loads. The purpose of this study was to determine the load to failure of a reinforced suture bar repair (Rebar Repair) for radial meniscus tear and compare it to the parallel suture technique and cross-stitch technique and to compare mode of failure among all three groups. The hypothesis was that the Rebar Repair will have a higher load to failure than both the parallel technique and the cross-stitch technique and that the Rebar Repair would have a lower rate of suture cutting through the meniscus. METHODS: Forty-eight menisci were tested from 24 human knee specimens, with 16 menisci in each group evenly distributed between medial and lateral menisci. Radial mid body meniscal tears were recreated and repaired with one of three inside-out techniques: the 2-parallel suture technique, 2 cross-stitch sutures, and the Rebar Repair. The specimens were cycled between 5 N to 30 N and axially loaded to failure perpendicularly across the repair site. RESULTS: The average load to failure of the parallel group, cross-stitch group and Rebar Repair was 85.5 N ± 22.0, 76.2 N ± 28.8 and 124.1 N ± 27.1 respectively. The Rebar Repair had a higher load to failure than the parallel group (p < 0.01) and cross-stitch group (p < 0.01). There was no difference in the load to failure between the cross-stitch and parallel group (p = 0.49). The failure mechanism was different when comparing the 3 groups (p < 0.01). The predominant mode of failure for both the parallel and cross-stitch group was suture cutout through the meniscus (88% and 94% respectively). The Rebar Repair failed due to suture rupture in 50% and suture cutout through the meniscus in 50%. CONCLUSION: The Rebar Repair for radial meniscus tear has a higher load to failure and a lower rate of suture cutout through the meniscus than the parallel technique and cross-stitch technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Radial meniscus tears lead to decreased hoop stresses of the meniscus and effectively a non-functional meniscus. Newer techniques may have a higher load to failure leading to more successful repairs. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6706491/ /pubmed/31440855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-019-0206-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research
Massey, Patrick
McClary, Kaylan
Parker, David
Barton, R. Shane
Solitro, Giovanni
The rebar repair for radial meniscus tears: a biomechanical comparison of a reinforced suture repair versus parallel and cross-stitch techniques
title The rebar repair for radial meniscus tears: a biomechanical comparison of a reinforced suture repair versus parallel and cross-stitch techniques
title_full The rebar repair for radial meniscus tears: a biomechanical comparison of a reinforced suture repair versus parallel and cross-stitch techniques
title_fullStr The rebar repair for radial meniscus tears: a biomechanical comparison of a reinforced suture repair versus parallel and cross-stitch techniques
title_full_unstemmed The rebar repair for radial meniscus tears: a biomechanical comparison of a reinforced suture repair versus parallel and cross-stitch techniques
title_short The rebar repair for radial meniscus tears: a biomechanical comparison of a reinforced suture repair versus parallel and cross-stitch techniques
title_sort rebar repair for radial meniscus tears: a biomechanical comparison of a reinforced suture repair versus parallel and cross-stitch techniques
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6706491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31440855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40634-019-0206-4
work_keys_str_mv AT masseypatrick therebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques
AT mcclarykaylan therebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques
AT parkerdavid therebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques
AT bartonrshane therebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques
AT solitrogiovanni therebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques
AT masseypatrick rebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques
AT mcclarykaylan rebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques
AT parkerdavid rebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques
AT bartonrshane rebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques
AT solitrogiovanni rebarrepairforradialmeniscustearsabiomechanicalcomparisonofareinforcedsuturerepairversusparallelandcrossstitchtechniques