Zhong Chen1, Haozhi Zhang1, Huan Luo1,2, Rui Yang1, Zhengzheng Zhang1, Chuan Jiang1, Jingyi Hou1, Yunfeng Zhou1, Yue Xu1, Bin Song3, Weiping Li4. 1. SunYat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, People's Republic of China. 2. Jiangmen Central Hospital, Jiangmen, 529000, People's Republic of China. 3. SunYat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, People's Republic of China. songbin3@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 4. SunYat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510120, People's Republic of China. liweip@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Most studies have concentrated on the changes in contact pressure and area on the tibiofemoral joint. This study compared the contact mechanics underneath the medial meniscus of a repaired vertical longitudinal tear with that of the intact or the torn ones. METHODS: In this controlled laboratory study, a 1000 N compressive axial load was applied to eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees at four flexion angles and four loading conditions using a custom testing apparatus attached to a material testing machine. Intact knees, knees with a medial meniscus vertical longitudinal tear, and knees after meniscal repair were tested. The peak contact pressure and area underneath the meniscus were measured using Fuji pressure-sensitive film. RESULTS: A medial meniscus vertical longitudinal tear significantly increased the contact pressure and decreased contact area underneath the meniscus compared with those at the intact meniscus under all tested biomechanical conditions, and repair of the tear can restore the contact pressure and area in most conditions. While the repaired group showed a significantly higher or similar contact pressure compared with the tear group at 90° neutral knee position and at 60°, 90° 5 N·m-external rotation and 134 N-anterior tibial translation, and 5 N·m-internal rotation at all flexion angles. The contact area corresponding to the aberrant result of the contact pressure in the repaired group was lower than in the intact meniscus group. CONCLUSIONS: The contact mechanics underneath the meniscus of the repaired medial meniscus vertical longitudinal tear were significantly improved compared with the corresponding tear conditions in most cases, while the contact pressure and area at some certain status after repair were not significantly different from those of the corresponding tear conditions.
PURPOSE: Most studies have concentrated on the changes in contact pressure and area on the tibiofemoral joint. This study compared the contact mechanics underneath the medial meniscus of a repaired vertical longitudinal tear with that of the intact or the torn ones. METHODS: In this controlled laboratory study, a 1000 N compressive axial load was applied to eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees at four flexion angles and four loading conditions using a custom testing apparatus attached to a material testing machine. Intact knees, knees with a medial meniscus vertical longitudinal tear, and knees after meniscal repair were tested. The peak contact pressure and area underneath the meniscus were measured using Fuji pressure-sensitive film. RESULTS: A medial meniscus vertical longitudinal tear significantly increased the contact pressure and decreased contact area underneath the meniscus compared with those at the intact meniscus under all tested biomechanical conditions, and repair of the tear can restore the contact pressure and area in most conditions. While the repaired group showed a significantly higher or similar contact pressure compared with the tear group at 90° neutral knee position and at 60°, 90° 5 N·m-external rotation and 134 N-anterior tibial translation, and 5 N·m-internal rotation at all flexion angles. The contact area corresponding to the aberrant result of the contact pressure in the repaired group was lower than in the intact meniscus group. CONCLUSIONS: The contact mechanics underneath the meniscus of the repaired medial meniscus vertical longitudinal tear were significantly improved compared with the corresponding tear conditions in most cases, while the contact pressure and area at some certain status after repair were not significantly different from those of the corresponding tear conditions.
Authors: Martin Englund; Ali Guermazi; Daniel Gale; David J Hunter; Piran Aliabadi; Margaret Clancy; David T Felson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Enzo S Mameri; Suhas P Dasari; Luc M Fortier; Fernando Gómez Verdejo; Safa Gursoy; Adam B Yanke; Jorge Chahla Journal: Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med Date: 2022-08-10
Authors: Sonia Bansal; Kyle D Meadows; Liane M Miller; Kamiel S Saleh; Jay M Patel; Brendan D Stoeckl; Elisabeth A Lemmon; Michael W Hast; Miltiadis H Zgonis; Carla R Scanzello; Dawn M Elliott; Robert L Mauck Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-11-12