Comparison of medial tibiofemoral joint mechanics between all-suture anchors and transtibial pullout technique for posterior medial meniscal root tears
Issued Date
2023-12-01
Resource Type
eISSN
1749799X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85167529540
Pubmed ID
37559157
Journal Title
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Volume
18
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research Vol.18 No.1 (2023)
Suggested Citation
Saengpetch N., Noowan S., Boonrod A., Jaruwanneechai K., Sumanont S., Vijittrakarnrung C. Comparison of medial tibiofemoral joint mechanics between all-suture anchors and transtibial pullout technique for posterior medial meniscal root tears. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research Vol.18 No.1 (2023). doi:10.1186/s13018-023-04071-2 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/88862
Title
Comparison of medial tibiofemoral joint mechanics between all-suture anchors and transtibial pullout technique for posterior medial meniscal root tears
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: The posterior medial meniscal root tear (PMMRT) seriously impacts the tibiofemoral joint biomechanics. Two available techniques for PMMRT repair include the transtibial pullout (TPO) repair and all-suture anchor (ASA) repair techniques. These techniques have not been compared biomechanically. Methods: A total of 20 fresh porcine cadaveric knee specimens were used. All 20 knees were randomly and evenly distributed into four groups (five specimens per group): (1) intact posterior meniscal root, (2) PMMRT, (3) TPO repair technique for PMMRT, and (4) ASA repair technique for PMMRT. The tibiofemoral contact mechanics were investigated using a pressure sensor. All knee specimens were tested by being loaded with 600 N axial compressive force at three different flexion angles (0°, 45°, and 90°). The contact surface area, contact pressure, peak pressure, and time-zero displacement were recorded. Results: The PMMRT caused a significant decrease in contact surface area, an increase in contact pressure, and peak pressure from the reference values observed in the intact meniscus group (P = 0.05, 0.016, and 0.008, respectively). After fixation, no significant difference was observed between the ASA and intact group. Meanwhile, significant differences were found between the TPO and intact group in terms of contact surface area, contact pressure, and peak pressure. In the comparison between the two techniques, the ASA group demonstrated higher contact surface area than the TPO group at the average knee flexion angle (p = 0.05). Conclusion: For most testing conditions, the ASA technique demonstrated superior biomechanical property in terms of contact surface area compared with the TPO technique under compressive loading conditions. The ASA technique could also restore the tibiofemoral contact mechanics to be comparable with those of the native intact knee. Meanwhile, a significant difference in tibiofemoral mechanics, compared with the intact knee, could be observed in the TPO technique.