Meniscal repair devices.
Meniscal repair devices not requiring accessory incisions are attractive. Many factors contribute to their clinical effectiveness including their biomechanical characteristics. This study compared several new meniscal repair devices with standard meniscal suture techniques. Using a porcine model, axis-of-insertion loads were applied to various meniscal sutures and repair devices. A single device or stitch was placed in a created meniscal tear and a load applied. Both loads and modes of failure were recorded. The load-to-failure data show stratification into 4 distinct statistical groups. Group A, 113 N for a double vertical stitch; group B, 80 N for a single vertical stitch; group C, 57 N for the BioStinger, 56 N for a horizontal mattress stitch, and 50 N for the T-Fix stitch; and group D, 33 N for the Meniscus Arrow (inserted by hand or gun), 32 N for the Clearfix screw, 31 N for the SDsorb staple, 30 N for the Mitek meniscal repair system, and 27 N for the Biomet staple. The failure mechanism varied. Sutures broke away from the knot. The Meniscus Arrow and BioStinger pulled through the inner rim with the crossbar intact. The Clearfix screw failed by multiple mechanisms, whereas 1 leg of the SDsorb staple always pulled out of the outer rim. The Mitek device usually failed by pullout from the inner rim. The Biomet staple always broke at the crosshead or just below it. Although the surgeon should be aware of the material properties of the repair technique chosen for a meniscal repair, this information is only an indication of device performance and may not correlate with clinical healing results.
Barber
F A
FA
Plano Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Center, Plano, Advanced Surgical Institutes, Medical City Dallas Hospital, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Herbert
M A
MA
D000818:Animals; D008422:Materials Testing; D008592:Menisci, Tibial / Q000601:surgery*; D009984:Orthopedic Fixation Devices; D013536:Suture Techniques; D013552:Swine; D013718:Tensile Strength; D000070600:Tibial Meniscus Injuries