4.5 Article

What is the best way to fix a polyurethane meniscal scaffold? A biomechanical evaluation of different fixation modes

Journal

KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 59-64

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2495-y

Keywords

Meniscal scaffold; Implantation; Meniscal suture; Biomechanical study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ingrowth of meniscal tissue into a meniscal scaffold can be optimized by securely fixing the scaffold into the meniscal remnants. The purpose of this research was to test and compare commonly used suture types and suture materials to fix a meniscal scaffold. Forty fresh porcine menisci were used. All tests used the same polyurethane-based scaffold. The load to failure of horizontal, vertical and diagonal sutures with PDS 0 and with Ethibond 0, and diagonal sutures with Ultra Fast-Fix(A (R)) and Sequent(A (R)) to fix a meniscal scaffold were tested. Five tests were conducted for each configuration. All constructs failed in the scaffold at a mean pullout force of 50.6 N (SD 12.7). Inferior results were noted for vertical sutures (40.1 N, SD 6.3) compared to horizontal (49.8 N, SD 5.5, p = 0.0007) and diagonal (51.7 N, SD 15.6, p = 0.024) sutures and for Ethibond 0 (41.4 N, SD 6.2) compared to PDS 0 (51.3 N, SD 12.9, p = 0.001). When comparing the diagonal suture placements, only Ethibond 0 (42.9 N, SD 5.4) showed significantly inferior results compared to PDS 0 (60.1 N, SD 16.9, p = 0.03), Ultra Fast-Fix(A (R)) (60.1 N, SD 9.3, p = 0.004) and Sequent(A (R)) (65.8 N, SD 4.4, p < 0.0001). The most common failure mode when fixing a polyurethane-based meniscal scaffold is suture pull-through of the scaffold in the distraction mode. This happens at a rather low pullout force and might preclude the use of this scaffold clinically. Vertical sutures and Ethibond 0 multifilament braided sutures fail at lower forces, and the tested commercial devices show promising results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available