Philipp Forkel1, Peter Foehr2, Johannes C Meyer1, Elmar Herbst1, Wolf Petersen3, Peter U Brucker1, Rainer Burgkart2, Andreas B Imhoff4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 3. Clinic of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Martin Luther Hospital, Caspar-Theyß-Straße 27-31, 14193, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. a.imhoff@lrz.tum.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to biomechanically compare three different posterior meniscal root repair techniques. Transtibial fixation of a posterior meniscus root tear (PMRT) combined with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction via one tunnel only shows similar properties in terms of cyclic loading and load to failure compared with direct anchor fixation. METHODS: Twenty-eight porcine knees were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 7 each): (1) native posterior meniscal root, (2) suture anchor repair, (3) refixation via a tibial ACL tunnel in combination with an interference screw fixation of the ACL graft, and (4) refixation via a tibial ACL tunnel in combination with an interference screw fixation of the ACL graft with an additional extracortical button fixation. The four groups underwent cyclic loading followed by a load-to-failure testing. Construct elongation during 1000 cycles, dynamic stiffness, attenuation, maximum force during load-to-failure testing, and failure mode were recorded. RESULTS: All reconstructions showed a significant lower maximum load (p < 0.0001) compared with the native meniscal root. The elongation for the transtibial fixation via the ACL tunnel without an additional extracortical backup fixation was significantly higher compared with the suture anchor technique (p < 0.0001). The additional use of a backup fixation led to similar results compared with the anchor repair technique. CONCLUSION: The transtibial refixation of the meniscal root can be combined with an ACL reconstruction using the same tibial bone tunnel. However, an additional extracortical backup fixation is necessary. This might avoid a slippage of suture material and a failure of meniscus root fixation.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to biomechanically compare three different posterior meniscal root repair techniques. Transtibial fixation of a posterior meniscus root tear (PMRT) combined with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction via one tunnel only shows similar properties in terms of cyclic loading and load to failure compared with direct anchor fixation. METHODS: Twenty-eight porcine knees were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 7 each): (1) native posterior meniscal root, (2) suture anchor repair, (3) refixation via a tibial ACL tunnel in combination with an interference screw fixation of the ACL graft, and (4) refixation via a tibial ACL tunnel in combination with an interference screw fixation of the ACL graft with an additional extracortical button fixation. The four groups underwent cyclic loading followed by a load-to-failure testing. Construct elongation during 1000 cycles, dynamic stiffness, attenuation, maximum force during load-to-failure testing, and failure mode were recorded. RESULTS: All reconstructions showed a significant lower maximum load (p < 0.0001) compared with the native meniscal root. The elongation for the transtibial fixation via the ACL tunnel without an additional extracortical backup fixation was significantly higher compared with the suture anchor technique (p < 0.0001). The additional use of a backup fixation led to similar results compared with the anchor repair technique. CONCLUSION: The transtibial refixation of the meniscal root can be combined with an ACL reconstruction using the same tibial bone tunnel. However, an additional extracortical backup fixation is necessary. This might avoid a slippage of suture material and a failure of meniscus root fixation.
Authors: Andrew G Geeslin; David Civitarese; Travis Lee Turnbull; Grant J Dornan; Fernando A Fuso; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Wolf Petersen; Philipp Forkel; Matthias J Feucht; Thore Zantop; Andreas B Imhoff; Peter U Brucker Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Robert F LaPrade; Christopher M LaPrade; Michael B Ellman; Travis Lee Turnbull; Anthony J Cerminara; Coen A Wijdicks Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-01-02 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Philipp Forkel; Sven Reuter; Frederike Sprenker; Andrea Achtnich; Elmar Herbst; Andreas Imhoff; Wolf Petersen Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Philipp Forkel; Mirco Herbort; Martin Schulze; Dieter Rosenbaum; Lars Kirstein; Michael Raschke; Wolf Petersen Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2013-03-31 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Anthony J Cerminara; Christopher M LaPrade; Sean D Smith; Michael B Ellman; Coen A Wijdicks; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Philipp Forkel; Constantin von Deimling; Lucca Lacheta; Florian B Imhoff; Peter Foehr; Lukas Willinger; Felix Dyrna; Wolf Petersen; Andreas B Imhoff; Rainer Burgkart Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Santiago Pache; Zachary S Aman; Mitchell Kennedy; Gilberto Y Nakama; Gilbert Moatshe; Connor Ziegler; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2018-07
Authors: Brian E Walczak; Kyle Miller; Michael A Behun; Lisa Sienkiewicz; Heather Hartwig Stokes; Ron McCabe; Geoffrey S Baer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria Prado-Novoa; Ana Perez-Blanca; Alejandro Espejo-Reina; Maria Jose Espejo-Reina; Alejandro Espejo-Baena Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 4.379