Biomechanical evaluation of the effect of arthroscopic suture passing instruments on the posterior meniscal root

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Knee Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1016/j.knee.2024.08.013
Yavuz Selim Karatekin , Harun Altinayak , Onur Yontar , Lokman Kehribar
{"title":"Biomechanical evaluation of the effect of arthroscopic suture passing instruments on the posterior meniscal root","authors":"Yavuz Selim Karatekin ,&nbsp;Harun Altinayak ,&nbsp;Onur Yontar ,&nbsp;Lokman Kehribar","doi":"10.1016/j.knee.2024.08.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The study aimed to biomechanically evaluate the effect of arthroscopic suture passing instruments used in the treatment of meniscal root tears on the meniscal suture interface in the root region.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A total of 40 intact lateral menisci, obtained during total knee arthroplasty, were procured for the purpose of conducting a biomechanical study. The menisci were randomly assigned to one of two distinct test groups: Group 1 using the Accu-Pass Suture Shuttle (cannulated) and Group 2 using the First-pass Mini Suture Passer (non-cannulated), with each group consisting of <em>n</em> = 20 samples. Maximum failure load, stiffness, and displacement values were obtained using a uniaxial universal tensile testing machine.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>When the groups were compared in terms of average maximum failure load (Group 1: 152.5N ± 50.7, Group 2: 162.5N ± 54.4), no statistically significant difference was observed (<em>P</em> = 0.549). At the moment of maximum failure load, the displacement values of both groups were similar (<em>P</em> = 0.502). In the comparison conducted for both groups in terms of preconditioning and postconditioning stiffness, no significant difference was detected between groups (<em>P-</em>values were 0.252 and 0.210, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In our study, the tissue laceration size created by suture passers at the meniscus–suture interface within the root region was indirectly tested based on the influence of tensile forces. Both suture passers (cannulated and non-cannulated) are similar in terms of maximum failure load, stiffness, and displacement amounts. This study indicates that there is no difference between suture passers for root tears and supports the usability of both methods during surgery.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56110,"journal":{"name":"Knee","volume":"51 ","pages":"Pages 93-101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968016024001479","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The study aimed to biomechanically evaluate the effect of arthroscopic suture passing instruments used in the treatment of meniscal root tears on the meniscal suture interface in the root region.

Methods

A total of 40 intact lateral menisci, obtained during total knee arthroplasty, were procured for the purpose of conducting a biomechanical study. The menisci were randomly assigned to one of two distinct test groups: Group 1 using the Accu-Pass Suture Shuttle (cannulated) and Group 2 using the First-pass Mini Suture Passer (non-cannulated), with each group consisting of n = 20 samples. Maximum failure load, stiffness, and displacement values were obtained using a uniaxial universal tensile testing machine.

Results

When the groups were compared in terms of average maximum failure load (Group 1: 152.5N ± 50.7, Group 2: 162.5N ± 54.4), no statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.549). At the moment of maximum failure load, the displacement values of both groups were similar (P = 0.502). In the comparison conducted for both groups in terms of preconditioning and postconditioning stiffness, no significant difference was detected between groups (P-values were 0.252 and 0.210, respectively).

Conclusion

In our study, the tissue laceration size created by suture passers at the meniscus–suture interface within the root region was indirectly tested based on the influence of tensile forces. Both suture passers (cannulated and non-cannulated) are similar in terms of maximum failure load, stiffness, and displacement amounts. This study indicates that there is no difference between suture passers for root tears and supports the usability of both methods during surgery.

关节镜缝合器械对半月板后根影响的生物力学评估
背景该研究旨在从生物力学角度评估用于治疗半月板根部撕裂的关节镜缝合器械对半月板根部缝合界面的影响。方法为了进行生物力学研究,我们采购了在全膝关节置换术中获得的 40 个完整的外侧半月板。这些半月板被随机分配到两个不同的测试组:第 1 组使用 Accu-Pass 缝合穿刺器(插管),第 2 组使用 First-pass Mini 缝合穿刺器(非插管),每组包括 n = 20 个样本。结果比较两组的平均最大破坏载荷(第 1 组:152.5N ± 50.7,第 2 组:162.5N ± 54.4),未观察到显著的统计学差异(P = 0.549)。在最大破坏荷载时刻,两组的位移值相似(P = 0.502)。结论在我们的研究中,根据拉力的影响,间接测试了缝合器在半月板-缝合界面根部区域造成的组织裂口大小。两种缝合器(套管式和非套管式)在最大破坏载荷、刚度和位移量方面相似。这项研究表明,不同的缝合穿刺器在根部撕裂方面没有区别,并支持两种方法在手术中的可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Knee
Knee 医学-外科
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
171
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Knee is an international journal publishing studies on the clinical treatment and fundamental biomechanical characteristics of this joint. The aim of the journal is to provide a vehicle relevant to surgeons, biomedical engineers, imaging specialists, materials scientists, rehabilitation personnel and all those with an interest in the knee. The topics covered include, but are not limited to: • Anatomy, physiology, morphology and biochemistry; • Biomechanical studies; • Advances in the development of prosthetic, orthotic and augmentation devices; • Imaging and diagnostic techniques; • Pathology; • Trauma; • Surgery; • Rehabilitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信