Biomechanical analysis of four different meniscus suturing techniques for posterior meniscal root pull-out repair: A human cadaveric study

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Ting-Yu Chang, Tai-Hua Yang, Kuan-Yu Lin
{"title":"Biomechanical analysis of four different meniscus suturing techniques for posterior meniscal root pull-out repair: A human cadaveric study","authors":"Ting-Yu Chang,&nbsp;Tai-Hua Yang,&nbsp;Kuan-Yu Lin","doi":"10.1002/jeo2.70020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the biomechanical properties of the slip-knot technique with three other transtibial pullout suture repair constructs for meniscal root tears.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-two fresh-frozen cadaveric menisci were randomly allocated to four meniscus-suture fixation constructs: Two simple-sutures (TSS), two slip-knot (TSK) sutures, two cinch-loop (TCL) sutures, and two modified Mason–Allen (TMMA) sutures. Cyclic loading from 5 to 20 N was conducted for 1000 cycles at 0.5 Hz, and then loaded to failure at 0.5 mm/s. Parametric data (displacement during cyclic loading, ultimate load, yield load, and displacement at failure) were analysed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), whereas nonparametric data (stiffness) were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>After 1000 cycles, the TCL construct significantly displaced the most (mean ± SD, 6.78 ± 1.32 mm; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), followed by the TMMA (2.83 ± 0.90 mm), TSK (2.33 ± 0.57 mm), and TSS (2.03 ± 0.62 mm) groups. On ultimate failure load, there was no significant difference between the TSK group (123.48 ± 27.24 N, <i>p</i> &gt; 0.05) and the other three groups (TSS, 94.65 ± 25.33 N; TMMA, 168.38 ± 23.24 N; TCL, 170.54 ± 57.32 N); however, it exhibited the least displacement (5.53 ± 1.25 mm) which was significantly shorter than those of the TCL (11.82 ± 4.25 mm, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and TMMA (9.53 ± 2.18 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.03) constructs. No significant difference in stiffness was observed among the four meniscus-suture constructs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The slip-knot technique has proven to be a simple, yet robust and stable meniscal root fixation option; moreover, it exhibited superiority over the more complex modified Mason–Allen suture construct in resisting displacement at the ultimate failure load.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>Not applicable.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","volume":"11 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jeo2.70020","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeo2.70020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the biomechanical properties of the slip-knot technique with three other transtibial pullout suture repair constructs for meniscal root tears.

Method

Thirty-two fresh-frozen cadaveric menisci were randomly allocated to four meniscus-suture fixation constructs: Two simple-sutures (TSS), two slip-knot (TSK) sutures, two cinch-loop (TCL) sutures, and two modified Mason–Allen (TMMA) sutures. Cyclic loading from 5 to 20 N was conducted for 1000 cycles at 0.5 Hz, and then loaded to failure at 0.5 mm/s. Parametric data (displacement during cyclic loading, ultimate load, yield load, and displacement at failure) were analysed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), whereas nonparametric data (stiffness) were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test.

Results

After 1000 cycles, the TCL construct significantly displaced the most (mean ± SD, 6.78 ± 1.32 mm; p < 0.001), followed by the TMMA (2.83 ± 0.90 mm), TSK (2.33 ± 0.57 mm), and TSS (2.03 ± 0.62 mm) groups. On ultimate failure load, there was no significant difference between the TSK group (123.48 ± 27.24 N, p > 0.05) and the other three groups (TSS, 94.65 ± 25.33 N; TMMA, 168.38 ± 23.24 N; TCL, 170.54 ± 57.32 N); however, it exhibited the least displacement (5.53 ± 1.25 mm) which was significantly shorter than those of the TCL (11.82 ± 4.25 mm, p < 0.001) and TMMA (9.53 ± 2.18 mm, p = 0.03) constructs. No significant difference in stiffness was observed among the four meniscus-suture constructs.

Conclusion

The slip-knot technique has proven to be a simple, yet robust and stable meniscal root fixation option; moreover, it exhibited superiority over the more complex modified Mason–Allen suture construct in resisting displacement at the ultimate failure load.

Level of Evidence

Not applicable.

Abstract Image

后半月板根部拉出修复术中四种不同半月板缝合技术的生物力学分析:人体尸体研究
目的 比较滑结技术与其他三种经胫骨拉出缝合修复半月板根部撕裂结构的生物力学特性。 方法 将 32 个新鲜冷冻的尸体半月板随机分配到四种半月板缝合固定结构中:两种简单缝合(TSS)、两种滑结缝合(TSK)、两种夹环缝合(TCL)和两种改良马森-艾伦缝合(TMMA)。以 0.5 Hz 的频率对缝合线进行了 1000 次从 5 牛顿到 20 牛顿的循环加载,然后以 0.5 mm/s 的速度加载至失效。参数数据(循环加载期间的位移、极限载荷、屈服载荷和破坏时的位移)采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)进行分析,而非参数数据(刚度)则采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验进行分析。 结果 1000 次循环后,TCL 结构的位移最大(平均值±标准差,6.78 ± 1.32 毫米;p < 0.001),其次是 TMMA 组(2.83 ± 0.90 毫米)、TSK 组(2.33 ± 0.57 毫米)和 TSS 组(2.03 ± 0.62 毫米)。在极限破坏载荷方面,TSK 组(123.48 ± 27.24 N,p > 0.05)与其他三组(TSS,94.65 ± 25.33 N;TMMA,168.38 ± 23.24 N;TCL,170.54 ± 57.32 N)之间没有显著差异。32 N);但其位移最小(5.53 ± 1.25 mm),明显短于 TCL(11.82 ± 4.25 mm,p < 0.001)和 TMMA(9.53 ± 2.18 mm,p = 0.03)结构。四种半月板缝合结构的硬度无明显差异。 结论 滑结技术已被证明是一种简单、坚固且稳定的半月板根部固定方法;此外,与更复杂的改良马森-艾伦缝合结构相比,滑结技术在抵抗最终破坏载荷时的位移方面表现更优。 证据级别 不适用。
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
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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