Literature DB >> 19732633

Biomechanical testing of new meniscal repair techniques containing ultra high-molecular weight polyethylene suture.

F Alan Barber1, Morley A Herbert, F Alexander Schroeder, Jorge Aziz-Jacobo, Michael J Sutker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of current meniscal repair techniques containing ultra high-molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) suture with and without cyclic loading.
METHODS: Vertical longitudinal cuts made in porcine menisci were secured with a single repair device. Noncycled and cycled (500 cycles) biomechanical tests were performed on the following groups: group 1, No. 2-0 Mersilene vertical suture (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ); group 2, No. 2-0 Orthocord vertical suture (DePuy Mitek, Westwood, MA); group 3, No. 0 Ultrabraid vertical suture (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA); group 4, No. 2-0 FiberWire vertical suture (Arthrex, Naples, FL); group 5, vertically oriented mattress suture by use of an Ultra FasT-Fix device (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy) with No. 0 Ultrabraid; group 6, vertically oriented mattress suture by use of a RapidLoc A2 device (DePuy Mitek) with No. 2-0 Orthocord suture; group 7, vertically oriented stitch by use of a MaxFire device with MaxBraid PE suture (Biomet Sports Medicine, Warsaw, IN); and group 8, an obliquely oriented stitch of No. 0 UHMWPE suture inserted by use of a CrossFix device (Cayenne Medical, Scottsdale, AZ). Endpoints were failure loads, failure modes, stiffness, and cyclic displacement.
RESULTS: Mean single-pull loads were calculated for Ultra FasT-Fix (121 N), FiberWire (110 N), MaxFire (130 N), Mersilene (84 N), Orthocord (124 N), RapidLoc A2 (86 N), CrossFix (77 N), and Ultrabraid (109 N). After 500 cyclic loads, the Orthocord (222 N) repair was stronger than the others: Ultra FasT-Fix (110 N), FiberWire (117 N), MaxFire (132 N), Mersilene (89 N), RapidLoc A2 (108 N), CrossFix (95 N), and Ultrabraid (126 N) (P < .05). Ultrabraid suture showed significantly more elongation over 500 cycles than the other repairs (P < .05). The principal failure mode associated with the single destructive pull (suture breakage) changed to pulling through the meniscus after cyclic loading for most devices. Knot slippage or device failure was seldom observed as the failure mode with these techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-adjusting, UHMWPE suture-containing meniscal repair devices (Ultra FasT-Fix, RapidLoc A2, and MaxFire) were comparable to the isolated UHMWPE-containing suture repairs on single-failure load testing. UHMWPE-containing suture repairs are stronger than braided polyester suture repairs, but pure UHMWPE suture (Ultrabraid) elongated more during cycling. Orthocord suture is significantly stronger than the other meniscal repair techniques after cyclic loading (P < .05). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Meniscal repair techniques using UHMWPE containing sutures provide greater strength than earlier generations of meniscal repair techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19732633     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.03.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  18 in total

1.  Horizontal suture placement influences meniscal repair fixation strength.

Authors:  Yavuz Kocabey; Omer Taser; John Nyland; Haluk Ince; Feyzi Sahin; Emin Sunbuloglu; Gokhan Baysal
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-04-07       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  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

3.  Biomechanical evaluation of different suture materials for arthroscopic transtibial pull-out repair of posterior meniscus root tears.

Authors:  Matthias J Feucht; Eduardo Grande; Johannes Brunhuber; Nikolaus Rosenstiel; Rainer Burgkart; Andreas B Imhoff; Sepp Braun
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  The concept of three-dimensional hold of both circumferential and radial collagen fibres of the meniscus.

Authors:  Ashraf Abdelkafy
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  The effect of inclination angle on the strength of vertical mattress configuration for meniscus repair.

Authors:  Mehmet Erduran; Onur Hapa; Baran Şen; Yavuz Kocabey; Diler Erdemli; Mehran Aksel; Hasan Havitçioğlu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  What is the best way to fix a polyurethane meniscal scaffold? A biomechanical evaluation of different fixation modes.

Authors:  Francois Hardeman; Kristoff Corten; Michiel Mylle; Bert Van Herck; René Verdonk; Peter Verdonk; Johan Bellemans
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  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

8.  Extra-articular dorsal closing-wedge osteotomy to treat late-stage Freiberg disease using polyblend sutures: technical tips and clinical results.

Authors:  Kazuya Ikoma; Masahiro Maki; Masamitsu Kido; Kan Imai; Yuji Arai; Hiroyoshi Fujiwara; Yasuo Mikami; Toshikazu Kubo
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 9.  Meniscus tear surgery and meniscus replacement.

Authors:  Javier Vaquero; Francisco Forriol
Journal:  Muscles Ligaments Tendons J       Date:  2016-05-19

10.  Meniscal repair in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a long-term outcome study.

Authors:  J T K Melton; J R Murray; A Karim; H Pandit; F Wandless; N P Thomas
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.