Biomechanical Comparison of Suture-Relay All-Suture Anchors and Conventional Suture Anchors for Posterior Medial Meniscus Root Repair in Porcine Models
Issued Date
2024-10-01
Resource Type
eISSN
23259671
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85207187711
Journal Title
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume
12
Issue
10
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Vol.12 No.10 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Saengpetch N., Prasitmeeboon N., Janyawongchot T., Aroonjarattham P., Somtua C., Thamyongkit S. Biomechanical Comparison of Suture-Relay All-Suture Anchors and Conventional Suture Anchors for Posterior Medial Meniscus Root Repair in Porcine Models. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Vol.12 No.10 (2024). doi:10.1177/23259671241279847 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/101838
Title
Biomechanical Comparison of Suture-Relay All-Suture Anchors and Conventional Suture Anchors for Posterior Medial Meniscus Root Repair in Porcine Models
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Posterior medial meniscus root (PMMR) tears (PMMRTs) can be repaired using various techniques to promote healing. However, the biomechanical properties of suture-relay all-suture anchor (ASA) versus conventional suture anchor (CSA) and loop-locking transtibial pullout (TTP) have not been well established. Purpose: To compare the biomechanical properties of PMMR repairs using suture-relay ASA, CSA, and loop-locking TTP. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 33 fresh-frozen porcine knee joints with intact medial menisci were randomly divided into 3 groups, with 11 specimens in each group: ASA, CSA, and TTP. The study involved cyclic loading, with displacement measurements taken after 100, 500, and 1000 cycles. Subsequently, the specimens were loaded until clinical failure (defined as 3-mm displacement) and then to ultimate failure of the construct, with data recorded for displacement after cyclic loading, load to 3-mm displacement, and ultimate load to failure. Results: After 1000 cyclic loadings, the suture-relay ASA group showed considerably less displacement than the loop-locking TTP group (1.8 ± 0.7 mm vs 2.9 ± 0.3 mm; P <.001), but the displacements did not differ considerably between the suture-relay ASA and CSA groups (2.2 ± 0.9 mm; P >.05). The mean loads to clinical failure were significantly greater in the suture-relay ASA and CSA groups (61.3 ± 6.5 and 57.5 ± 9.7 N, respectively) than in the loop-locking TTP group (38.3 ± 9.4 N; P <.05). The ultimate load to failure was significantly greater in the suture-relay ASA group than in the loop-locking TTP group (153 ± 55.1 N vs 102 ± 12.9 N; P <.05). All specimens in the loop-locking TTP group failed by suture elongation mode, whereas only 2 specimens (18%) in the suture-relay ASA group and 5 specimens (45%) in the CSA group failed by suture elongation. Nine specimens (82%) in the suture-relay ASA group and 6 specimens (55%) in the CSA group failed due to suture cutout through the meniscal tissue. Conclusion: The biomechanical properties after PMMR repair did not statistically differ between the suture-relay ASA and CSA groups. The suture-relay ASA technique had a higher load to failure than the loop-locking TTP technique. Clinical Relevance: The suture-relay ASA technique is a promising option for the repair of PMMRTs; its repairing strength is also comparable to that of the CSA technique. Notably, the suture-relay ASA technique can be utilized without establishing a posteromedial portal, resulting in decreased procedure time and mitigating challenges associated with working from the posterior aspect of the knee.