Shear Force at Failure and Stiffness of All-Inside Meniscal Repair Devices

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the failure load and stiffness of various meniscal repair devices. A total of 61 fresh-frozen porcine menisci (medial and lateral) were used for the study. A 30-mm vertical, full-thickness tear was created and repaired using one of three all-inside fixation devices and one inside–out repair in the vertical mattress pattern. We used the MaxBraid (Biomet, Warsaw, IN) inside–out suture as a control. The other devices tested were the Meniscal Cinch (Arthrex, Naples, FL), Ultra FasT-Fix (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA), and the MaxFire MarXmen (Biomet, Warsaw, IN). In addition, two devices, MaxFire MarXmen and Ultra FasT-Fix, were tested using a horizontal mattress configuration. Using the vertical mattress pattern, the Meniscal Cinch had the highest average load to failure. The Meniscal Cinch was significantly less stiff than the other three devices (p < 0.04). For the MarXmen and Ultra FasT-Fix, no differences were noted for load to failure between horizontal and vertical mattress patterns. The mode of failure was significantly different when comparing the two different surgical techniques for the MaxFire MarXmen (p = 0.005). The MaxFire MarXmen device produced a significantly stiffer (p < 0.001) construct when following the manufacturer's instructions (5.8 N/mm) than with the technique used for the other all-inside devices (2.5 N/mm) The Meniscal Cinch had the highest load-to-failure value but the lowest stiffness of the group in the vertical mattress configuration. There was little difference in biomechanical properties between vertical and horizontal repair. Importantly, there was a significant difference in stiffness and failure mode for the MaxFire MarXmen when the manufacturer guidelines were not specifically followed.

Keywords

meniscal repair - meniscus biomechanics - all-inside fixation devices - knee

• References

• 1 Garrett Jr WE, Swiontkowski MF, Weinstein JN , et al. American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Practice of the Orthopaedic Surgeon: part-II, certification examination case mix. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (3) 660-667
• 2 McDermott ID, Amis AA. The consequences of meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (12) 1549-1556
• 3 Barber FA, Herbert MA. Meniscal repair devices. Arthroscopy 2000; 16 (6) 613-618
• 4 Barber FA, Herbert MA, Schroeder FA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Sutker MJ. Biomechanical testing of new meniscal repair techniques containing ultra high-molecular weight polyethylene suture. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (9) 959-967
• 5 Chang JH, Shen HC, Huang GS , et al. A biomechanical comparison of all-inside meniscus repair techniques. J Surg Res 2009; 155 (1) 82-88
• 6 Mehta VM, Terry MA. Cyclic testing of 3 all-inside meniscal repair devices: a biomechanical analysis. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (12) 2435-2439
• 7 Zantop T, Eggers AK, Musahl V, Weimann A, Petersen W. Cyclic testing of flexible all-inside meniscus suture anchors: biomechanical analysis. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (3) 388-394
• 8 Zantop T, Temmig K, Weimann A, Eggers AK, Raschke MJ, Petersen W. Elongation and structural properties of meniscal repair using suture techniques in distraction and shear force scenarios: biomechanical evaluation using a cyclic loading protocol. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (5) 799-805
• 9 Brucker PU, Favre P, Puskas GJ, von Campe A, Meyer DC, Koch PP. Tensile and shear loading stability of all-inside meniscal repairs: an in vitro biomechanical evaluation. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (9) 1838-1844
• 10 Fisher SR, Markel DC, Koman JD, Atkinson TS. Pull-out and shear failure strengths of arthroscopic meniscal repair systems. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2002; 10 (5) 294-299
• 11 Mariani PP, Santori N, Adriani E, Mastantuono M. Accelerated rehabilitation after arthroscopic meniscal repair: a clinical and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. Arthroscopy 1996; 12 (6) 680-686
• 12 Shelbourne KD, Patel DV, Adsit WS, Porter DA. Rehabilitation after meniscal repair. Clin Sports Med 1996; 15 (3) 595-612
• 13 Nyland J, Chang H, Kocabey Y, Nawab A, Brand J, Caborn DN. A cyclic testing comparison of FasT-Fix and RapidLoc devices in human cadaveric meniscus. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008; 128 (5) 489-494
• 14 Arnoczky SP, Lavagnino M. Tensile fixation strengths of absorbable meniscal repair devices as a function of hydrolysis time. An in vitro experimental study. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (2) 118-123
• 15 Aros BC, Pedroza A, Vasileff WK, Litsky AS, Flanigan DC. Mechanical comparison of meniscal repair devices with mattress suture devices in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (11) 1594-1598
• 16 Becker R, Stärke C, Heymann M, Nebelung W. Biomechanical properties under cyclic loading of seven meniscus repair techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (400) 236-245
• 17 Farng E, Sherman O. Meniscal repair devices: a clinical and biomechanical literature review. Arthroscopy 2004; 20 (3) 273-286
• 18 Lozano J, Ma CB, Cannon WD. All-inside meniscus repair: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 455: 134-141
• 19 Richards DP, Barber FA, Herbert MA. Compressive loads in longitudinal lateral meniscus tears: a biomechanical study in porcine knees. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (12) 1452-1456
• 20 Richards DP, Barber FA, Herbert MA. Meniscal tear biomechanics: loads across meniscal tears in human cadaveric knees. Orthopedics 2008; 31 (4) 347-350
• 21 Flanigan DC, Lin F, Koh JL, Zhang LQ. Articular contact pressures of meniscal repair techniques at various knee flexion angles. Orthopedics 2010; 33 (7) 475
• 22 Klompmaker J, Jansen HW, Veth RP , et al. Meniscal repair by fibrocartilage? An experimental study in the dog. J Orthop Res 1992; 10 (3) 359-370
• 23 Pujol N, Panarella L, Selmi TA, Neyret P, Fithian D, Beaufils P. Meniscal healing after meniscal repair: a CT arthrography assessment. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (8) 1489-1495