Richard Mitchell1, Ryan Pitts1, Young-Mo Kim2, Matthew J Matava3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.. Electronic address: matavam@wudosis.wustl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the time-zero load-to-failure strength of 4 different constructs used to repair medial meniscal root avulsions. METHODS: Sixty fresh-frozen cadaveric knees with a mean age of 74 years were used for this study. Each knee was dissected to isolate the attachment of the posterior root of the medial meniscus to the tibial plateau. An Instron machine (Instron, Norwood, MA) with a custom-designed clamp was used to avulse the intact posterior meniscal root in 12 control specimens. An additional 48 specimens were tested after transection of the native meniscal root to evaluate the pullout strength of 4 different repair constructs using No. 0 FiberWire suture (Arthrex, Naples, FL): a single suture (n = 12), a double suture (n = 12), a loop stitch (n = 12), and a locking loop stitch (n = 12). Analysis of variance was used to compare load to failure and stiffness of all 4 groups; pair-wise, between-group differences were also assessed. RESULTS: Repair failure occurred most commonly by suture pullout in 94% of the specimens in the repair groups. For the controls, failure occurred most commonly at the meniscus-clamp interface. Failure load was highest for the control group (mean, 359.5 ± 168 N), followed in descending order by the locking loop stitch (191.4 ± 45.1 N), loop stitch (119.6 ± 55.0 N), double suture (96.2 ± 51.4 N), and single suture (58.2 ± 29.6 N). The control group was significantly stronger than 3 of the experimental groups (single suture [95% CI, 3.8 to 11.3], double suture [95% CI, 2.1 to 6.4], and loop stitch [95% CI, 2.0 to 4.5]; P < .0001) but not the locking loop stitch (P = .003; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.2). The locking loop stitch was significantly stronger than the single suture (P < .0001; 95% CI, 2.0 to 5.4) and double suture (P = .003; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.9). The locking loop stitch was significantly stiffer than the single suture (P < .0001; 95% CI, 3.8 to 20.3), double suture (P < .0001; 95% CI, 2.0 to 9.8), and loop stitch (P = .03; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.5) but not significantly different from the control group (P = .93; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.9). Age and gender had no effect on pullout strength. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that the locking loop stitch provided time-zero load-to-failure strength that most closely approximated the strength of the native meniscal root in addition to being significantly stronger and stiffer than 3 other commonly used repair methods. The true strength of the native meniscal root is unknown based on limitations with our testing methodology. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The locking loop stitch exhibited the highest load to failure and stiffness of the 4 fixation methods tested, despite the fact that none of the fixation methods replicated the strength of the intact meniscal root. It is currently unknown what strength of fixation is required for healing of meniscal root repairs.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the time-zero load-to-failure strength of 4 different constructs used to repair medial meniscal root avulsions. METHODS: Sixty fresh-frozen cadaveric knees with a mean age of 74 years were used for this study. Each knee was dissected to isolate the attachment of the posterior root of the medial meniscus to the tibial plateau. An Instron machine (Instron, Norwood, MA) with a custom-designed clamp was used to avulse the intact posterior meniscal root in 12 control specimens. An additional 48 specimens were tested after transection of the native meniscal root to evaluate the pullout strength of 4 different repair constructs using No. 0 FiberWire suture (Arthrex, Naples, FL): a single suture (n = 12), a double suture (n = 12), a loop stitch (n = 12), and a locking loop stitch (n = 12). Analysis of variance was used to compare load to failure and stiffness of all 4 groups; pair-wise, between-group differences were also assessed. RESULTS: Repair failure occurred most commonly by suture pullout in 94% of the specimens in the repair groups. For the controls, failure occurred most commonly at the meniscus-clamp interface. Failure load was highest for the control group (mean, 359.5 ± 168 N), followed in descending order by the locking loop stitch (191.4 ± 45.1 N), loop stitch (119.6 ± 55.0 N), double suture (96.2 ± 51.4 N), and single suture (58.2 ± 29.6 N). The control group was significantly stronger than 3 of the experimental groups (single suture [95% CI, 3.8 to 11.3], double suture [95% CI, 2.1 to 6.4], and loop stitch [95% CI, 2.0 to 4.5]; P < .0001) but not the locking loop stitch (P = .003; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.2). The locking loop stitch was significantly stronger than the single suture (P < .0001; 95% CI, 2.0 to 5.4) and double suture (P = .003; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.9). The locking loop stitch was significantly stiffer than the single suture (P < .0001; 95% CI, 3.8 to 20.3), double suture (P < .0001; 95% CI, 2.0 to 9.8), and loop stitch (P = .03; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.5) but not significantly different from the control group (P = .93; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.9). Age and gender had no effect on pullout strength. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that the locking loop stitch provided time-zero load-to-failure strength that most closely approximated the strength of the native meniscal root in addition to being significantly stronger and stiffer than 3 other commonly used repair methods. The true strength of the native meniscal root is unknown based on limitations with our testing methodology. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The locking loop stitch exhibited the highest load to failure and stiffness of the 4 fixation methods tested, despite the fact that none of the fixation methods replicated the strength of the intact meniscal root. It is currently unknown what strength of fixation is required for healing of meniscal root repairs.
Authors: Aaron J Krych; Nick R Johnson; Isabella T Wu; Patrick A Smith; Michael J Stuart Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Daniel J Kaplan; Erin F Alaia; Andrew P Dold; Robert J Meislin; Eric J Strauss; Laith M Jazrawi; Michael J Alaia Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Dong Jin Ryu; Kyeu Back Kwon; Da Hee Hong; Sang Jun Park; Jae Sung Park; Joon Ho Wang Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 2.362