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.
biomechanical · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 39055394.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1002/jeo2.12110 and PMC identifier 11269362.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
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. 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. 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%). This study demonstrates that an ASARD shows a higher mean LTF than a PCARD when compared in an experimental biomechanical setting. Level III.