Literature DB >> 14689168

A new rigid biodegradable anchor for meniscus refixation: biomechanical evaluation.

Thore Zantop1, Anne Kathleen Eggers, Volker Musahl, Andre Weimann, Joachim Hassenpflug, Wolf Petersen.   

Abstract

All-inside repair devices have been developed to overcome the disadvantages of conventional suture techniques (such as vein and nerve damage and increased OR time). The Contour Meniscus Arrow is a second generation of the first biodegradable all-inside implant, the Meniscus Arrow. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of the Contour Meniscus Arrow to the first-generation Meniscus Arrow and vertical or horizontal suture techniques. In fresh frozen bovine menisci, initial fixation strength, stiffness and failure mode of four different meniscus refixation techniques (Meniscus Arrow, Contour Meniscus Arrow, vertical and horizontal 2-0 Ethibond suture techniques) were evaluated in a computer-based material-testing machine at a rate of 12.5 mm/s. Vertical meniscus sutures showed the highest initial fixation strength, followed by the horizontal suture technique and the Contour Arrow. The Meniscus Arrow showed inferior pull-out strength. Subjecting the different refixation techniques to cyclic testing decreased the fixation strength in all groups. The modified Meniscus Anchor (Contour Arrow) provides biomechanical properties that are superior (pull-out strength) or similar (stiffness) compared to the first biodegradable all-inside implant, the Meniscus Arrow. The pull-out strength of the Contour Arrow was comparable to the pull-out strength reported for horizontal meniscus sutures in the literature. These biomechanical characteristics of this new implant justify clinical use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14689168     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-003-0439-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  37 in total

1.  Mechanical evaluation of a soft tissue interference screw in free tendon anterior cruciate ligament graft fixation.

Authors:  D G Nagarkatti; B P McKeon; B S Donahue; J P Fulkerson
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Failure strength of repair devices versus meniscus suturing techniques.

Authors:  Mehmet Aşík; Nadir Sener
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2001-10-09       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Meniscal repair devices.

Authors:  F A Barber; M A Herbert
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.772

4.  Meniscus repair.

Authors:  Ejnar Eriksson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Chondral injury following meniscal repair with a biodegradable implant.

Authors:  K Anderson; R G Marx; J Hannafin; R F Warren
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.772

6.  Failure strengths of suture versus biodegradable arrow for meniscal repair: an in vitro study.

Authors:  G F Dervin; K J Downing; G C Keene; D G McBride
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.772

7.  Failure strength of a new meniscus arrow repair technique: biomechanical comparison with horizontal suture.

Authors:  P Albrecht-Olsen; T Lind; G Kristensen; B Falkenberg
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.772

8.  The strength of the menisci of the knee as it relates to their fine structure.

Authors:  P G Bullough; L Munuera; J Murphy; A M Weinstein
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1970-08

9.  Tensile fixation strengths of absorbable meniscal repair devices as a function of hydrolysis time. An in vitro experimental study.

Authors:  S P Arnoczky; M Lavagnino
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.202

10.  Meniscal fixation with an absorbable staple. An experimental study in dogs.

Authors:  T D Koukoubis; R R Glisson; J A Feagin; A V Seaber; D Schenkman; A V Korompilias; D L Stahl
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.342

View more
  4 in total

1.  Mechanical comparison of meniscal repair devices with mattress suture devices in vitro.

Authors:  Brian C Aros; Angela Pedroza; William K Vasileff; Alan S Litsky; David C Flanigan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Meta-analysis on biomechanical properties of meniscus repairs: are devices better than sutures?

Authors:  Daniel M Buckland; Patrick Sadoghi; Matthias D Wimmer; Patrick Vavken; Geert I Pagenstert; Victor Valderrabano; Claudio Rosso
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  [Complications with all-inside devices used in reconstructive meniscal surgery].

Authors:  P Wilmes; O Lorbach; P Brogard; R Seil
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Increased Construct Stiffness With Meniscal Repair Sutures and Devices Increases the Risk of Cheese-Wiring During Biomechanical Load-to-Failure Testing.

Authors:  Sebastian Müller; Tanja Schwenk; Michael de Wild; Dimitris Dimitriou; Claudio Rosso
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-06-15
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.