We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
All-inside meniscal repair devices compared with their matched inside-out vertical mattress suture repair: introducing 10,000 and 100,000 loading cycles.
American Journal of Sports Medicine 2014 September
BACKGROUND: All-inside arthroscopic meniscal repairs are favored by most clinicians because of their lower complication rate and decreased morbidity compared with inside-out techniques. Until now, only 1000 cycles have been used for biomechanical testing.
HYPOTHESIS: All-inside meniscal repairs will show inferior biomechanical response to cyclic loading (up to 100,000 cycles) and load-to-failure testing compared with inside-out suture controls.
STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Bucket-handle tears in 72 porcine menisci were repaired using the Omnispan and Fast-Fix 360 (all-inside devices) and Orthocord 2-0 and Ultrabraid 2-0 sutures (matched controls). Initial displacement, displacement after cyclic loading (100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000, and 100,000 cycles) between 5 and 20 N, ultimate load to failure, and mode of failure were recorded, as well as stiffness.
RESULTS: Initial displacement and displacement after cyclic loading were not different between the groups. The Omnispan repair demonstrated the highest load-to-failure force (mean ± SD, 151.3 ± 21.5 N) and was significantly stronger than all the other constructs (Orthocord 2-0, 105.5 ± 20.4 N; Ultrabraid 2-0, 93.4 ± 22.5 N; Fast-Fix 360, 76.6 ± 14.2 N) (P < .0001 for all). The Orthocord vertical inside-out mattress repair was significantly stronger than the Fast-Fix 360 repair (P = .003). The Omnispan (30.8 ± 3.5 N/mm) showed significantly higher stiffness compared with the Ultrabraid 2-0 (22.9 ± 6.9 N/mm, P < .0001) and Fast-Fix 360 (23.7 ± 3.9 N/mm, P = .001). The predominant mode of failure was suture failure.
CONCLUSION: All-inside meniscal devices show comparable biomechanical properties compared with inside-out suture repair in cyclic loading, even after 100,000 cycles.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Eight to 10 weeks of rehabilitation might not pose a problem for all repairs in this worst-case scenario.
HYPOTHESIS: All-inside meniscal repairs will show inferior biomechanical response to cyclic loading (up to 100,000 cycles) and load-to-failure testing compared with inside-out suture controls.
STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Bucket-handle tears in 72 porcine menisci were repaired using the Omnispan and Fast-Fix 360 (all-inside devices) and Orthocord 2-0 and Ultrabraid 2-0 sutures (matched controls). Initial displacement, displacement after cyclic loading (100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000, and 100,000 cycles) between 5 and 20 N, ultimate load to failure, and mode of failure were recorded, as well as stiffness.
RESULTS: Initial displacement and displacement after cyclic loading were not different between the groups. The Omnispan repair demonstrated the highest load-to-failure force (mean ± SD, 151.3 ± 21.5 N) and was significantly stronger than all the other constructs (Orthocord 2-0, 105.5 ± 20.4 N; Ultrabraid 2-0, 93.4 ± 22.5 N; Fast-Fix 360, 76.6 ± 14.2 N) (P < .0001 for all). The Orthocord vertical inside-out mattress repair was significantly stronger than the Fast-Fix 360 repair (P = .003). The Omnispan (30.8 ± 3.5 N/mm) showed significantly higher stiffness compared with the Ultrabraid 2-0 (22.9 ± 6.9 N/mm, P < .0001) and Fast-Fix 360 (23.7 ± 3.9 N/mm, P = .001). The predominant mode of failure was suture failure.
CONCLUSION: All-inside meniscal devices show comparable biomechanical properties compared with inside-out suture repair in cyclic loading, even after 100,000 cycles.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Eight to 10 weeks of rehabilitation might not pose a problem for all repairs in this worst-case scenario.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app