PURPOSE: To directly compare effectiveness of the inside-out and all-inside medial meniscal repair techniques in restoring native contact area and contact pressure across the medial tibial plateau at multiple knee flexion angles. METHODS: Twelve male, nonpaired (n = 12), fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees underwent a series of 5 consecutive states: (1) intact medial meniscus, (2) MCL tear and repair, (3) simulated bucket-handle longitudinal tear of the medial meniscus, (4) inside-out meniscal repair, and (5) all-inside meniscal repair. Knees were loaded with a 1,000-N axial compressive force at 5 knee flexion angles (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°), and contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure were calculated using thin film pressure sensors. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the inside-out and all-inside repair techniques at any flexion angle for contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure (all P > .791). Compared with the torn meniscus state, inside-out and all-inside repair techniques resulted in increased contact area at all flexion angles (all P < .005 and all P < .037, respectively), decreased mean contact pressure at all flexion angles (all P < .007 and all P < .001, respectively) except for 0° (P = .097 and P = .39, respectively), and decreased peak contact pressure at all flexion angles (all P < .001, all P < .001, respectively) except for 0° (P = .080 and P = .544, respectively). However, there were significant differences in contact area and peak contact pressure between the intact state and inside-out technique at angles ≥45° (all P < .014 and all P < .032, respectively). Additionally, there were significant differences between the intact state and all-inside technique in contact area at 60° and 90° and peak contact pressure at 90° (both P < .005 and P = .004, respectively). Median values of intact contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure over the tested flexion angles ranged from 498 to 561 mm2, 786 to 997 N/mm2, and 1,990 to 2,215 N/mm2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure were not significantly different between the all-inside and inside-out repair techniques at any tested flexion angle. Both techniques adequately restored native meniscus biomechanics near an intact level. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: An all-inside repair technique provided similar, native-state-restoring contact mechanics compared with an inside-out repair technique for the treatment of displaced bucket-handle tears of the medial meniscus. Thus, both techniques may adequately decrease the likelihood of cartilage degeneration.
PURPOSE: To directly compare effectiveness of the inside-out and all-inside medial meniscal repair techniques in restoring native contact area and contact pressure across the medial tibial plateau at multiple knee flexion angles. METHODS: Twelve male, nonpaired (n = 12), fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees underwent a series of 5 consecutive states: (1) intact medial meniscus, (2) MCL tear and repair, (3) simulated bucket-handle longitudinal tear of the medial meniscus, (4) inside-out meniscal repair, and (5) all-inside meniscal repair. Knees were loaded with a 1,000-N axial compressive force at 5 knee flexion angles (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°), and contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure were calculated using thin film pressure sensors. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the inside-out and all-inside repair techniques at any flexion angle for contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure (all P > .791). Compared with the torn meniscus state, inside-out and all-inside repair techniques resulted in increased contact area at all flexion angles (all P < .005 and all P < .037, respectively), decreased mean contact pressure at all flexion angles (all P < .007 and all P < .001, respectively) except for 0° (P = .097 and P = .39, respectively), and decreased peak contact pressure at all flexion angles (all P < .001, all P < .001, respectively) except for 0° (P = .080 and P = .544, respectively). However, there were significant differences in contact area and peak contact pressure between the intact state and inside-out technique at angles ≥45° (all P < .014 and all P < .032, respectively). Additionally, there were significant differences between the intact state and all-inside technique in contact area at 60° and 90° and peak contact pressure at 90° (both P < .005 and P = .004, respectively). Median values of intact contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure over the tested flexion angles ranged from 498 to 561 mm2, 786 to 997 N/mm2, and 1,990 to 2,215 N/mm2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Contact area, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure were not significantly different between the all-inside and inside-out repair techniques at any tested flexion angle. Both techniques adequately restored native meniscus biomechanics near an intact level. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: An all-inside repair technique provided similar, native-state-restoring contact mechanics compared with an inside-out repair technique for the treatment of displaced bucket-handle tears of the medial meniscus. Thus, both techniques may adequately decrease the likelihood of cartilage degeneration.
Authors: Kyle R Sochacki; Marc R Safran; Geoffrey D Abrams; Joseph Donahue; Constance Chu; Seth L Sherman Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-11-20