在实验性尸体测试环境中，用于全内侧半月板修复的全缝合锚系统与 PEEK 笼锚系统相比具有更高的负载-失效率。

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Pub Date : 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1002/jeo2.12110

Lorenz Pichler, Gyula Kiss, Thomas Sator, Andrea Schuller, Sam A. Kandathil, Marcus Hofbauer, Thomas Koch, Lena Hirtler, Thomas Tiefenboeck

{"title":"在实验性尸体测试环境中，用于全内侧半月板修复的全缝合锚系统与 PEEK 笼锚系统相比具有更高的负载-失效率。","authors":"Lorenz Pichler, Gyula Kiss, Thomas Sator, Andrea Schuller, Sam A. Kandathil, Marcus Hofbauer, Thomas Koch, Lena Hirtler, Thomas Tiefenboeck","doi":"10.1002/jeo2.12110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a latest generation all-suture anchor repair device (ASARD) for meniscal repair with that of a latest generation PEEK-cage anchor repair device (PCARD) in an experimental setting using cadaveric menisci.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-six menisci were obtained from the knees of fresh body donors. Artificially created meniscal lesions were treated randomly, using a single stitch with either an ASARD or a PCARD. Cyclic biomechanical testing, utilising a universal material testing machine and following an established protocol, was carried out and load-to-failure (LTF), displacement, stiffness, and mode-of-failure (MOF) reported.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Mean LTF was found to be 61% higher in the ASARD group at 107.10 N (standard deviation [SD], 42.34), compared to 65.86 N (SD, 27.42) in the PCARD group with statistical significance (<i>p</i> = 0.022). The ASARD exhibited a trend towards higher stiffness (10.35 N; SD, 3.92 versus 7.78 N; SD; 3.59) and higher displacement at cycles one, 100, and 499 (1.64, 3.27, and 4.17 mm versus 0.93, 2.19, and 2.83 mm) compared to the PCARD. Cheese wiring was the most common mode-of-failure in both groups (76.9%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study demonstrates that an ASARD shows a higher mean LTF than a PCARD when compared in an experimental biomechanical setting.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of evidence</h3>\n \n <p>Level III</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","volume":"11 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11269362/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Superior load-to-failure in an all-suture anchor system for all-inside meniscal repair compared to a PEEK-cage anchor system in an experimental cadaveric test setting\",\"authors\":\"Lorenz Pichler, Gyula Kiss, Thomas Sator, Andrea Schuller, Sam A. Kandathil, Marcus Hofbauer, Thomas Koch, Lena Hirtler, Thomas Tiefenboeck\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jeo2.12110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a latest generation all-suture anchor repair device (ASARD) for meniscal repair with that of a latest generation PEEK-cage anchor repair device (PCARD) in an experimental setting using cadaveric menisci.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Twenty-six menisci were obtained from the knees of fresh body donors. Artificially created meniscal lesions were treated randomly, using a single stitch with either an ASARD or a PCARD. Cyclic biomechanical testing, utilising a universal material testing machine and following an established protocol, was carried out and load-to-failure (LTF), displacement, stiffness, and mode-of-failure (MOF) reported.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Mean LTF was found to be 61% higher in the ASARD group at 107.10 N (standard deviation [SD], 42.34), compared to 65.86 N (SD, 27.42) in the PCARD group with statistical significance (<i>p</i> = 0.022). The ASARD exhibited a trend towards higher stiffness (10.35 N; SD, 3.92 versus 7.78 N; SD; 3.59) and higher displacement at cycles one, 100, and 499 (1.64, 3.27, and 4.17 mm versus 0.93, 2.19, and 2.83 mm) compared to the PCARD. Cheese wiring was the most common mode-of-failure in both groups (76.9%).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study demonstrates that an ASARD shows a higher mean LTF than a PCARD when compared in an experimental biomechanical setting.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Level of evidence</h3>\\n \\n <p>Level III</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics\",\"volume\":\"11 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11269362/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeo2.12110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeo2.12110","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

摘要

目的：本研究旨在使用尸体半月板，在实验环境中比较用于半月板修复的最新一代全缝合锚修复装置（ASARD）与最新一代 PEEK 笼锚修复装置（PCARD）的生物力学特性：方法：从新鲜尸体捐献者的膝盖上获取 26 个半月板。方法：从新鲜尸体捐献者的膝盖上获取了 26 个半月板，对人工制造的半月板损伤进行随机处理，使用 ASARD 或 PCARD 进行单针缝合。利用通用材料试验机并按照既定方案进行了循环生物力学测试，并报告了破坏荷载（LTF）、位移、硬度和破坏模式（MOF）：ASARD组的平均LTF为107.10牛顿（标准差[SD]，42.34），比PCARD组的65.86牛顿（标准差，27.42）高61%，具有统计学意义（P = 0.022）。与 PCARD 相比，ASARD 表现出更高的硬度（10.35 N；SD，3.92 对 7.78 N；SD；3.59）和更高的位移（1.64、3.27 和 4.17 mm 对 0.93、2.19 和 2.83 mm）。奶酪接线是两组中最常见的故障模式（76.9%）：本研究表明，在生物力学实验环境中进行比较时，ASARD显示出比PCARD更高的平均LTF：证据等级：三级。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

Superior load-to-failure in an all-suture anchor system for all-inside meniscal repair compared to a PEEK-cage anchor system in an experimental cadaveric test setting

查看原文本刊更多论文

Superior load-to-failure in an all-suture anchor system for all-inside meniscal repair compared to a PEEK-cage anchor system in an experimental cadaveric test setting

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a latest generation all-suture anchor repair device (ASARD) for meniscal repair with that of a latest generation PEEK-cage anchor repair device (PCARD) in an experimental setting using cadaveric menisci.

Methods

Twenty-six menisci were obtained from the knees of fresh body donors. Artificially created meniscal lesions were treated randomly, using a single stitch with either an ASARD or a PCARD. Cyclic biomechanical testing, utilising a universal material testing machine and following an established protocol, was carried out and load-to-failure (LTF), displacement, stiffness, and mode-of-failure (MOF) reported.

Results

Mean LTF was found to be 61% higher in the ASARD group at 107.10 N (standard deviation [SD], 42.34), compared to 65.86 N (SD, 27.42) in the PCARD group with statistical significance (p = 0.022). The ASARD exhibited a trend towards higher stiffness (10.35 N; SD, 3.92 versus 7.78 N; SD; 3.59) and higher displacement at cycles one, 100, and 499 (1.64, 3.27, and 4.17 mm versus 0.93, 2.19, and 2.83 mm) compared to the PCARD. Cheese wiring was the most common mode-of-failure in both groups (76.9%).