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

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.

Improved Outcomes After Reinforced Radial Meniscus Repair Augmented With Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate

Purpose

To assess clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone surgical repair of radial meniscal tears with reinforced suture bar (rebar) technique augmented with bone marrow aspirate concentrate.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of a single fellowship-trained sports medicine surgeon's experience on all patients who underwent a reinforced repair (rebar) of a radial meniscus tear from November 2016 to 2018, with a minimum of 12-month follow-up. Lysholm scores, IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) Subjective Knee Form scores, and Tegner scale were collected postoperatively at periods for at least 1 year and retrospectively studied.

Results

Patients were followed for an average of 36.3 ± 25.0 months [range: 12.0-69.0 months]. Pain scores improved from 6.1 ± 2.1 to 0.4 ± 1.4 at 1 year (P < .001). IKDC Subjective Knee Form scores improved from 63 ± 26 to 90 ± 13 (P = .021). Lysholm scores improved from 64 ± 28 to 94 ± 9 (P = .025). Based on a calculated minimal clinical important difference (MCID) of 1.5, 100% of patients had improvement above the MCID. In addition, 88% of patients had a 1-year IKDC Subjective Knee Form score above the patient acceptable symptomatic state. Preoperative Tegner activity scale improved from 3 ± 1.5 to 8 ± 2.6 (P = .007). Patients returned to their preinjury activity with little difference in the Tegner activity scale when we compared preinjury and 1-year postoperative (8.1 ± 1.3 vs 8.0 ± 2.6 respectively, P = .317).

Conclusions

The rebar repair technique for radial meniscus tears, with bone marrow aspirate concentrate augmentation, showed improved outcomes in both pain and function at minimum follow-up of 12 months. Patients were able to return to a high preinjury activity level by 1 year, and 100% of patients had improvement above the MCID and 88% met patient acceptable symptomatic state.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

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.

Six-Month Outcomes of Clinically Relevant Meniscal Injury in a Large-Animal Model

BACKGROUND

The corrective procedures for meniscal injury are dependent on tear type, severity, and location. Vertical longitudinal tears are common in young and active individuals, but their natural progression and impact on osteoarthritis (OA) development are not known. Root tears are challenging and they often indicate poor outcomes, although the timing and mechanisms of initiation of joint dysfunction are poorly understood, particularly in large-animal and human models.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

In this study, vertical longitudinal and root tears were made in a large-animal model to determine the progression of joint-wide dysfunction. We hypothesized that OA onset and progression would depend on the extent of injury-based load disruption in the tissue, such that root tears would cause earlier and more severe changes to the joint.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Sham surgeries and procedures to create either vertical longitudinal or root tears were performed in juvenile Yucatan mini pigs through randomized and bilateral arthroscopic procedures. Animals were sacrificed at 1, 3, or 6 months after injury and assessed at the joint and tissue level for evidence of OA. Functional measures of joint load transfer, cartilage indentation mechanics, and meniscal tensile properties were performed, as well as histological evaluation of the cartilage, meniscus, and synovium.

RESULTS

Outcomes suggested a progressive and sustained degeneration of the knee joint and meniscus after root tear, as evidenced by histological analysis of the cartilage and meniscus. This occurred in spite of spontaneous reattachment of the root, suggesting that this reattachment did not fully restore the function of the native attachment. In contrast, the vertical longitudinal tear did not cause significant changes to the joint, with only mild differences compared with sham surgery at the 6-month time point.

CONCLUSION

Given that the root tear, which severs circumferential connectivity and load transfer, caused more intense OA compared with the circumferentially stable vertical longitudinal tear, our findings suggest that without timely and mechanically competent fixation, root tears may cause irreversible joint damage.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

More generally, this new model can serve as a test bed for experimental surgical, scaffold-based, and small molecule-driven interventions after injury to prevent OA progression.

All-Inside Arthroscopic Meniscal Stacked Suture Repair for Hypermobile Lateral Meniscus With FASTFIX 360

Even though inside-out repair of meniscal tears is still the gold standard, the need for a posterior incision is a certain disadvantage of this approach. However, all-inside arthroscopic meniscal stacked suture repair can be performed for hypermobile lateral meniscus using all-inside devices and slotted canula. This technique is able not only to reduce surgical invasion but also preserve meniscal mobility, since sutures are placed on the peripheral area of the lateral meniscus. To successfully use the devices required for this procedure, surgeons must understand proper insertion techniques. The purpose of this Technical Note is to demonstrate this technique using FASTFIX 360.

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 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.

Biomechanical Comparison of Vertical Mattress and Cross-stitch Suture Techniques and Single- and Double-Row Configurations for the Treatment of Bucket-Handle Medial Meniscal Tears

BACKGROUND

Given the variety of suturing techniques for bucket-handle meniscal repair, it is important to assess which suturing technique best restores native biomechanics.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

To biomechanically compare vertical mattress and cross-stitch suture techniques, in single- and double-row configurations, in their ability to restore native knee kinematics in a bucket-handle medial meniscal tear model. The hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the vertical mattress and cross-stitch double-row suture techniques but that the double-row technique would provide significantly improved biomechanical parameters versus the single-row technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Ten matched pairs of human cadaver knees were randomly assigned to the vertical mattress (n = 10) or cross-stitch (n = 10) repair group. Each knee underwent 4 consecutive testing conditions: (1) intact, (2) displaced bucket-handle tear, (3) single-row suture configuration on the femoral meniscus surface, and (4) double-row suture configuration (repair of femoral and tibial meniscus surfaces). Knees were loaded with a 1000-N axial compressive force at 0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, and 120° of flexion for each condition. Resultant medial compartment contact area, average contact pressure, and peak contact pressure data were recorded.

RESULTS

Intact state contact area was not restored at 0° ( P = .027) for the vertical double-row configuration and at 0° ( P = .032), 60° ( P < .001), and 90° ( P = .007) of flexion for the cross-stitch double-row configuration. No significant differences were found in the average contact pressure and peak contact pressure between the intact state and the vertical mattress and cross-stitch repairs with single- and double-row configurations at any flexion angles. When the vertical and cross-stich repairs were compared across all flexion angles, no significant differences were observed in single-row configurations, but in double-row configurations, cross-stitch repair resulted in a significantly decreased contact area, average contact pressure, and peak contact pressure (all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Single- and double-row configurations of the vertical mattress and cross-stitch inside-out meniscal repair techniques restored native tibiofemoral pressure after a medial meniscal bucket-handle tear at all assessed knee flexion angles. Despite decreased contact area with a double-row configuration, mainly related to the cross-stitch repair, in comparison with the intact state, the cross-stitch double-row repair led to decreased pressure as compared with the vertical double-row repair. These findings are applicable only at the time of the surgery, as the biological effects of healing were not considered.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Medial meniscal bucket-handle tears may be repaired with the single- or double-row configuration of vertical mattress or cross-stitch sutures.