Biomechanical investigations of different meniscal repair implants in comparison with horizontal sutures on human meniscus

Citation
R. Becker et al., Biomechanical investigations of different meniscal repair implants in comparison with horizontal sutures on human meniscus, ARTHROSCOPY, 17(5), 2001, pp. 439-444
Citations number
23
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
Ortopedics, Rehabilitation & Sport Medicine
Journal title
ARTHROSCOPY
ISSN journal
0749-8063 → ACNP
Volume
17
Issue
5
Year of publication
2001
Pages
439 - 444
Database
ISI
SICI code
0749-8063(200105/06)17:5<439:BIODMR>2.0.ZU;2-F
Abstract
Purpose: The use of biodegradable implants for arthroscopic repair of menis cal lesions is becoming increasingly popular. The aim of this study was to test the biomechanical stability and the mode of failure of these implants. Type of Study: Biomechanical testing study. Methods: Biomechanical investi gations were performed on human menisci using 6 commonly used biodegradable implants for meniscal repair to compare them with horizontal mattress sutu re using 2/0 Ethibond (Ethicon, Norderstedt, Germany). Included in this stu dy were the Meniscus Arrow (Bionx, Tampere, Finland), Dart (Arthrex, Naples , FL), Stinger (Linvatec, Large, FL), Meniscal Screw (Innovasive, Marlborou gh, MA), T-Fix (Acufex, Mansfield, MA), and the Fastener (Mitek, Westwood, MA). The tests were carried out using a material testing machine at a loadi ng rate of 10 N/second. The ultimate tension load (UTL:), elongation, and s tiffness were evaluated for each implant technique. Results: The highest UT L was shown by Ethibond (62 +/- 7.91 N) and the T-Fix (51.35 +/- 16.31 N), followed by the Fastener (32.67 +/- 2.97 N). All other implants had a signi ficantly lower UTL (P = .001). Less elongation under a load of 5 N was note d for Ethibond (0.64 +/- 0.25 mm) and for T-Fix (0.43 +/- 0.32 mm) compared with the other implants. The greatest elongation was found for the Fastene r (2.239 +/- 0.581 mm). The stiffness of the fixation was similar in all im plants, except for the Dart and Fastener, which were significantly inferior (P < .05). Conclusions: All of the biodegradable implants had lower UTL th an the suture techniques. Therefore, when using the implants, they should b e inserted close together to provide sufficient stability. In cases of an e xtended lesion, there might even be an option to combine the implant and su turing techniques.