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.

Physeal bar resection by modified arthroscopically assisted surgery in a closed osteocavity

Background

Physeal bar resection has been used for partial growth arrest treatment for a decade while removing the bony bar minimally invasively and accurately is challenging. This research aims to illustrate a modified arthroscopically assisted surgery, by which all the procedure was under all-inside visualization, without the constant exchange between burring under fluoroscopy, followed by irrigation, suction, and arthroscopy of the canal.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the patients who sustained physeal bar resection under direct all-inside visualization of the arthroscope during 2016-2021. Patients who underwent physeal bar resection with the aid of an arthroscope for identifying the physeal cartilage but not resecting and visualizing the physeal bar simultaneously were excluded from this study.

Results

In total, nine patients with ten related joints were included in this study. All the patients were followed up for at least two years. The average following time was 28.5 ± 6.7 months. Eight patients with nine related joints had an improvement of angular deformity, averaging 8.3 ± 6.9 degrees, and one had a worsening of the angular deformity. All the patients had a leg length discrepancy improvement, while four patients still had LLD >1 cm. The surgery time was 3.1 ± 0.7 h. There were no postoperative fractures, infections, or intraoperative complications such as neurovascular injury.

Conclusions

Using clamps to form a closed osteocavity could make physeal bar resection under all-inside arthroscopic visualization feasible, which is minimally invasive, accurate, and safe.

All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Technique: Tips and Tricks

The all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) technique was developed to improve patient outcomes by reducing the procedure's invasiveness, minimizing complications and pain, and enabling faster postoperative recovery. This study presents a detailed description of the all-inside ACLR technique, which involves the use of quadrupled semitendinosus (ST) graft and suspension devices at both tibial and femoral sites, as well as valuable tips for avoiding complications that may arise during the procedure. The surgical procedure employs retrograde drills to create bony sockets for graft passage, which are then fixed with suspension devices at both the tibial and femoral sites. This technique has no specific restrictions and may be applied to all patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The literature reports the advantages, good clinical outcomes, and medium- to long-term graft survival achieved with the all-inside ACLR technique. However, the complications and disadvantages associated with the technique must be considered.

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.

Suture Hook Versus All-Inside Repair for Longitudinal Tears of the Posterior Horn of the Medial Meniscus Concomitant to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group

BACKGROUND

Secondary meniscectomy rates after repair of longitudinal tears of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus (PHMM) performed concomitantly with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are reported to be as high as 25% with an all inside repair technique. Posteromedial portal suture hook repair is an emerging technique; however, it is unknown whether it confers a significantly reduced secondary meniscectomy rate compared with the current gold standard.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The primary objective of this study was to compare the secondary meniscectomy rates of suture hook repair and all inside repair for longitudinal tears of the PHMM performed concomitant to ACLR. The secondary outcome was to determine the risk factors associated with the failure of the repair. It was hypothesized that repair with an all inside device would be associated with higher secondary meniscectomy rates when compared with suture hook repair and that concomitant anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) would confer improved meniscal repair survivorship.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients with longitudinal tears of the PHMM who underwent meniscal repair during primary ACLR between January 2011 and December 2015 at our institution were eligible for the study. Patients undergoing suture hook repair were propensity matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients who underwent all inside repair. At the end of the study period, secondary meniscectomy rates were determined.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 237 matched pairs. The mean follow up was 97.7 ± 17.3 months. Patients who underwent an all inside repair had a >2-fold higher failure rate compared with patients who underwent suture hook repair through a posteromedial portal (31.2% vs 15.6%; P = .0003). Patients in the suture hook repair group undergoing additional ALLR demonstrated a >3-fold higher meniscal repair survival rate compared with all other subgroups (P = .0014). This association was not seen in the all inside repair group. The only statistically significant risk factor for meniscal repair failure was the suture repair technique (hazard ratio, 2.133 [95% CI, 1.383-3.292]; P = .0008).

CONCLUSION

Suture hook repair through a posteromedial portal is associated with a significantly lower secondary meniscectomy rate when compared with the all inside meniscal repair of longitudinal tears of the PHMM performed at the time of ACLR. Furthermore, patients in the suture hook repair group who underwent an additional ALLR had a significantly better meniscal repair survivorship compared with all other subgroups.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With the All-Inside Technique: Equivalent Outcomes and Failure Rate at Three-Year Follow-Up Compared to a Doubled Semitendinosus-Gracilis Graft

Purpose: To compare in terms of failure rates, clinical and functional outcomes the all-inside anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with double suspensory fixation and quadrupled semitendinosus autograft with anteromedial portal doubled semitendinosus-gracilis autograft with suspensory femoral and tibial interference screw fixation.

Methods: Forty-four patients were sequentially allocated into two groups and followed up prospectively for a 3-year period. The first group was the all-inside group and the second was the “classic” AM portal with S-G graft. Each group comprised 22 patients. All patients underwent KT-1000 testing preoperatively and at a minimum of six months postoperatively. Visual pain analog was recorded preoperatively and during both the immediate postoperative period and throughout the follow-up. The Lysholm knee score was used comparing the preoperative and 24-month timepoints.

Results: The visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores showed a significant difference at two weeks (2.4 vs 1.8, p < 0.01 ) in favor of the all-inside group, but that difference disappeared in the later follow-up visits. Similarly, there was no significant difference with Lysholm knee scores at two years and the side-to-side anterior translation measured with the KT-1000. At the three-year mark, there were no failures in either of the groups.

Conclusion: The all-inside technique appears to be equivalent in terms of outcomes to the classic S-G technique, and given the less-invasive nature and versatility in graft choices is a safe and effective technique for primary ACL reconstruction.

Independent Versus Transtibial Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis With Meta-regression

Background:

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be performed with different techniques for independent and transtibial (TT) drilling of femoral tunnels, but there is still no consensus on which approach leads to the best outcome.

Purpose:

To assess whether the independent or TT drilling approach for ACL reconstruction leads to the best functional outcomes.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was conducted on July 1, 2020, using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The influence of different femoral drilling techniques was analyzed through a meta-analysis in terms of patient-reported outcome measure scores, risk of complications, range of motion limitations, graft failure, and differential laxity. Subanalyses were performed to compare the different independent drilling techniques considered. Linear metaregression was performed to evaluate if the year of study publication influenced the results. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed following the Cochrane guidelines.

Results:

A total of 22 randomized controlled trials including 1658 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Lysholm score were higher with the independent drilling approach (mean difference [MD], 1.24 [P = .02] and 0.55 [P = .005], respectively). No difference was documented in terms of the risk of reinjury, but independent drilling led to reduced KT-1000 arthrometer–assessed anterior tibial translation (MD, 0.23; P = .01) and a higher probability of a negative postoperative pivot-shift test finding (risk ratio, 1.13; P = .04). There were no significant differences in IKDC objective or Tegner scores. A P value of .07 was found for the association between the year of the study and IKDC objective scores.

Conclusion:

Independent femoral tunnel drilling provided better results than the TT approach, although the difference was not clinically significant. No difference was observed in the risk of reinjury. Increasingly better results were seen among surgical procedures performed in more recent years. Among the independent drilling options, the anteromedial portal technique seemed to provide the most favorable outcomes. The lack of clinically significant differences and the promising outcomes reported with new modified TT techniques suggest the importance of correct placement, rather than the tunnel drilling approach, to optimize the results of ACL reconstruction.

All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using an Anterior Half of the Peroneus Longus Tendon Autograft

Background:

The peroneus longus tendon (PLT) has been used as a graft in many orthopaedic surgical procedures because of its comparable biomechanical strength with the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Despite its potential, few studies have been performed to investigate the clinical reliability of ACL reconstruction using a PLT autograft.

Purpose:

To assess the clinical outcomes and donor-site morbidity of ACL reconstruction using an anterior half of the PLT (AHPLT) autograft in patients with an isolated ACL injury.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Between January 2016 and January 2017, a total of 21 patients with an isolated ACL injury underwent all-inside single-bundle ACL reconstruction using an AHPLT autograft. Knee stability was assessed using the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, and KT-2000 arthrometer (side-to-side difference) with 134-N anterior force and at 30° of knee flexion. Knee function was evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lysholm score, and Tegner score. Donor-site morbidity was assessed using ankle eversion and plantarflexion strength as well as the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society scoring system and the Foot and Ankle Disability Index.

Results:

At a mean final follow-up of 40.1 months (range, 36-48 months), the KT-2000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was significantly lower compared with preoperatively (1.1 ± 0.62 vs 7.0 ± 2.18 mm, respectively; P < .001). The mean preoperative International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, and Tegner scores were 52.0 ± 8.27, 50.9 ± 8.50, and 1.8 ± 0.87, respectively, increasing significantly to 94.2 ± 2.61, 95.2 ± 2.64, and 6.8 ± 1.50, respectively, at final follow-up (P < .001 for all). All patients had grade 5 muscle strength in ankle eversion and plantarflexion at the donor site, with mean American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society and Foot and Ankle Disability Index scores of 96.8 and 97.6, respectively. No complications or reoperations occurred.

Conclusion:

All-inside ACL reconstruction using an AHPLT autograft produced good functional scores and stability without obvious ankle-site morbidity.

All-Inside Repair of Bucket-Handle Meniscal Tears: Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on technique of choice for repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs).

PURPOSE

To determine factors that affect patient outcomes and failure rates in patients undergoing all-inside repairs of BHMTs.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review of 3 databases using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. All English-language literature from 1993 to 2019 describing clinical outcomes for patients undergoing all-inside BHMT repair with ≥12-month follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Patient characteristics (patient sex, age), intraoperative factors (laterality, concomitant procedures, surgical technique, implants utilized), and postoperative outcomes (failure rates) were analyzed. Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (1 level 1, 4 level 3, 10 level 4) with 763 total patients (64% male; average age, 26.4 years [range, 9-58 years]; average follow-up, 39.8 months [range, 12-120 months]) including 396 all-inside BHMT repairs were included. Six devices were used for repair including the Meniscal Repair System, FasT-Fix, Meniscus Arrow, Biofix Arrow, RapidLoc device, and PDS II suture, with failure rates of 13.5%, 22.4%, 27.1%, 42.9%, 45.2%, and 0%, respectively. The overall repair failure rate was 29.3% at an average of 13.0 months (range, 5.0-32.4 months), but 19.0% for devices still in use. The RapidLoc and Biofix Arrow had higher failure rates than other devices (P = .0003). Women (31%) were less likely to experience a failure than were men (69%) (P = .03). Longer follow-up duration resulted in higher failure rates (>30 months, 34.4%; <30 months, 23.4%; P = .016). In 4 studies reporting on both all-inside and inside-out repairs, no significant differences in failure rates were observed. No significant differences in failure rates were found between medial and lateral repairs nor repair with and without concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (P > .05 for all). The overall average MCMS was 54.4 ± 12.

CONCLUSION

The overall failure rate after all-inside repair of BHMTs is 29.3% at an average of 13.0 months, with no difference in failure rates between medial and lateral meniscal repairs. The variables shown to negatively affect the failure rates were the RapidLoc and Biofix Arrow, male sex, and longer follow-up duration.

All-inside versus inside-out suture techniques in arthroscopic meniscus repair: A prospective randomized study protocol

BACKGROUND

With advancements in our understanding of meniscal function, treatment options for meniscal injuries have evolved considerably over the past few decades. The aim of the current study was to compare the all-inside and inside-out techniques with regard to retear rate, functional outcomes, and perioperative complications in patients who had undergone arthroscopic meniscus repair. We hypothesized that there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative outcomes after arthroscopic meniscus repair.

METHODS

This study was a prospective randomized blinded study, with a parallel design and an allocation ratio of 1:1 for the treatment groups. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board in our hospital and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects participating in the trial. It was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. A total of 70 patients who meet inclusion criteria are randomized to either all-inside or inside-out group. The primary outcome measure was retear rate. Retear was determined by repeat arthroscopic evaluation of patients with follow-up for symptoms of persistent or new pain, catching, or locking that was possibly related to the meniscal repair. Secondary outcomes included disease-specific quality of life measurement with the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool, range of motion, operative time, and adverse events at surgery or throughout the follow-up period.

RESULTS

This study has limited inclusion and exclusion criteria and a well-controlled intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5589).

Meniscal Repairs in the Adolescent Knee: Can the Number of Fixation Sites Improve Outcomes?

Background:

Meniscal pathology in children and adolescents is now a common occurrence because of their ever-increasing participation in youth sports.

Purpose:

To investigate the outcomes of arthroscopic meniscal repair in an adolescent cohort and analyze the variables that may affect outcomes, specifically the number of fixation sites utilized during repair.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A retrospective review of all children and adolescents younger than 18 years who underwent arthroscopic meniscal repair at a single institution was performed. Patient characteristics, operative details (eg, tear pattern, tear location, method of repair, and number of fixation sites [determined based on the number of sutures used for repair]), and concomitant procedures were recorded.

Results:

A total of 175 primary meniscal repairs met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Of this cohort, 115 were able to be contacted and were included in the final study cohort. The mean follow-up was 41 months. The mean age of the children was 14.9 years, and 91 (79%) had concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with their meniscal repair. The mean Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee functional outcome score was 91 (range, 43-100), and the mean Lysholm functional outcome score was 91 (range, 47-100). Of the 115 meniscal repairs, there were a total of 19 reoperations (17%); 15 (13%) were because of meniscal repair failures. The only variable that statistically increased the risk of meniscal repair failure was low number of fixation sites, with the failure group having a mean of 1.79 sutures and the nonfailure group having a mean of 2.97 sutures (P = .03).

Conclusion:

Successful meniscal repairs and a lower failure rate may be achieved with a greater number of fixation sites with promising results at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Validated functional outcome scores were good, with a 13% failure rate. Larger cohort, longer term, multicenter multisurgeon data are still needed to further elucidate the number of fixation sites needed when performing a meniscal repair in the pediatric and adolescent knee.

All-Inside Versus Inside-Out Meniscal Repair With Concurrent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-regression Analysis

BACKGROUND

Meniscal tears are frequently repaired during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

PURPOSE

To systematically evaluate differences in clinical failures between all-inside and inside-out meniscal repairs performed during ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review was perfomed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The databases queried included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All English-language studies reporting failure rates after meniscal repair with either the all-inside or inside-out technique performed in conjunction with ACLR were identified between 1980 and 2015. Studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Reported outcomes, clinical meniscal repair failures, and complications were assessed. Studies were weighted according to the size of the clinical series and mean follow-up length. Inverse-variance-weighted mixed models were used to evaluate whether there was a significant difference in pooled reoperation rates between repair techniques.

RESULTS

In total, 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 studies reported outcomes after all-inside repair, and 10 studies reported outcomes after inside-out repair (2 studies reported both). A total of 1126 patients were included in the analysis. The mean (±SD) follow-up for all-inside repair was 58.64 ± 22.24 months versus 76.25 ± 31.69 months for inside-out repair ( P = .13). The clinical failure rate for all-inside meniscal repair performed concurrently with ACLR was 16% (121/744) compared with 10% (39/382) for inside-out repair, and this was found to be significant ( P = .016). Implant irritation and device migration were the most common complications reported for all-inside repair; complication rates did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

There may be fewer early clinical failures when the inside-out technique is utilized for meniscal repair at the time of concomitant ACLR. Additional long-term studies will be useful to determine the operative success of these repairs over time.

Biomechanical comparison of 2 anterior cruciate ligament graft preparation techniques for tibial fixation: adjustable-length loop cortical button or interference screw

BACKGROUND

Cortical button fixation at the femoral side and interference screws within the tibial bone tunnel are widely used for anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation. Using a bone socket instead of a full tunnel allows cortical button fixation on the tibial side as well. If adjustable-length loop cortical button devices are used for femoral and tibial fixation, the tendon graft has to be secured with sutures in a closed tendon loop. The increased distance of fixation points and potential slippage of the tendon strands at the securing sutures might lead to greater risk of postoperative graft elongation when compared with conventional graft preparation with tibial interference screw fixation.

HYPOTHESIS

Compared with an anterior cruciate ligament graft with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation, a graft with tibial interference screw fixation will show less graft elongation during cyclic loading and lower ultimate failure loads.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Grafts with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation and grafts with tibial interference screw fixation were biomechanically tested in calf tibiae (n = 10 per group). Femoral fixation was equivalent for both groups, using an adjustable-length loop cortical button. Specimens underwent cyclic loading followed by a load-to-failure test.

RESULTS

Grafts with screw fixation showed significantly less initial elongation (cycles 1-5: 1.46 ± 0.26 mm), secondary elongation (cycles 6-1000: 1.87 ± 0.67 mm), and total elongation (cycles 1-1000: 3.33 ± 0.83 mm) in comparison with grafts with button fixation (2.47 ± 0.26, 3.56 ± 0.39, and 6.03 ± 0.61 mm, respectively) (P < .001). While pull-out stiffness was significantly higher for grafts with screw fixation (309.5 ± 33.2 vs 185.6 ± 16.4 N/mm) (P < .001), grafts with button fixation were able to withstand significantly higher ultimate failure loads (908 ± 74 vs 693 ± 119 N) (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Grafts with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation resulted in higher graft elongation during cyclic loading and showed higher ultimate failure loads in comparison with conventional graft preparation with tibial interference screw fixation at time zero.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The results of this biomechanical study suggest that grafts with tibial interference screw fixation provide better knee stability at time zero because of reduced graft elongation and greater stiffness in comparison with grafts with tibial adjustable-length loop cortical button fixation.

All-inside suture device is superior to meniscal arrows in meniscal repair: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Multiple techniques and implants are available for all-inside meniscal repair, but the knowledge about their failure rates and functional outcome is still incomplete. The hypothesis was that there might be differences between meniscal arrows and suture devices regarding reoperation rates and functional outcome. Thereby, the aim of this study was to compare clinical results following repair with the Biofix(®) arrows or the FasT-Fix(®) suture devices.

METHODS

In this RCT, 46 patients were treated either by Biofix(®) (n = 21) or FasT-Fix(®) (n = 25). The main outcome was reoperation within 2 years. Knee function and activity level were evaluated by KOOS and Tegner activity scale.

RESULTS

Twelve out of 46 (26%) patients were reoperated within 2 years, nine out of 21 (43%) in the Biofix(®)-group versus three out of 25 (12%) in the FasT-Fix(®)-group (p = 0.018). The relative risk of reoperation was 3.6 times higher for Biofix(®) compared to FasT-Fix(®) (95% confidence interval 1.1-11.5). Both treatment groups had significant increase in all KOOS subscales, but there were no major differences between the groups. The subgroup of reoperated patients differed from the other patients with higher Tegner score preoperatively (median 5 vs. 4) (p = 0.037) and at 3-month follow-up (median 4 vs. 3) (p = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that FasT-Fix(®) suture is superior to Biofix(®) arrows with significant lower failure rate. Functional outcome did not depend on repair technique. Higher activity score preoperatively and at 3-month follow-up in the reoperated patients indicates that activity level may influence on the risk of reoperation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

All-inside, physeal-sparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not significantly compromise the physis in skeletally immature athletes: a postoperative physeal magnetic resonance imaging analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in skeletally immature patients can result in growth disturbance due to iatrogenic physeal injury. Multiple physeal-sparing ACL reconstruction techniques have been described; however, few combine the benefits of anatomic reconstruction using sockets without violation of the femoral or tibial physis.

PURPOSE

To utilize physeal-specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to quantify the zone of physeal injury after all-inside ACL reconstruction in skeletally immature athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Twenty-three skeletally immature patients (mean chronologic age 12.6 years; range, 10-15 years) were prospectively evaluated after all-inside ACL reconstruction. The mean bone age was 13.2 years. There were 8 females and 15 males. Fifteen patients underwent an all-epiphyseal (AE) ACL reconstruction and 8 patients had a partial transphyseal (PTP) ACL reconstruction, which spared the femoral physis but crossed the tibial physis. At 6 and 12 months postoperatively, MRI using 3-dimensional fat-suppressed spoiled gradient recalled echo sequences and full-length standing radiographs were performed to assess graft survival, growth arrest, physeal violation, angular deformity, and leg length discrepancy.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up for this cohort was 18.5 months (range, 12-39 months). Minimal tibial physeal violation was seen in 10 of 15 patients in the AE group and, by definition, all patients in the PTP group. The mean area of tibial physeal disturbance (±SD) was 57.8 ± 52.2 mm(2) (mean 2.1% of total physeal area) in the AE group compared with 145.1 ± 100.6 mm(2) (mean 5.4% of total physeal area) in the PTP group (P = .003). Minimal compromise of the femoral physis (1.5%) was observed in 1 case in the PTP group and no cases in the AE group. No cases of growth arrest, articular surface violation, or avascular necrosis were noted on MRI. No postoperative angular deformities or significant leg length discrepancies were observed.

CONCLUSION

The study data suggest that all-inside ACL reconstruction is a safe technique for skeletally immature athletes at short-term follow-up. Physeal-specific MRI reveals minimal growth plate compromise that is significantly lower than published thresholds for growth arrest.

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.