Comparison of Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics After Various Transtibial and All-Inside Fixation Techniques for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Radial Tears in a Porcine Model
To compare tibiofemoral contact mechanics after fixation for medial meniscus posterior root radial tears (MMPRTs). Seven fresh knees from mature pigs were used. Each knee was tested under 5 conditions: normal knee, MMPRT, pullout fixation with simple sutures, fixation with modified Mason-Allen sutur...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Arthroscopy 2018-04, Vol.34 (4), p.1060-1068 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1068 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 1060 |
| container_title | Arthroscopy |
| container_volume | 34 |
| creator | Chung, Kyu Sung Choi, Choong Hyeok Bae, Tae Soo Ha, Jeong Ku Jun, Dal Jae Wang, Joon Ho Kim, Jin Goo |
| description | To compare tibiofemoral contact mechanics after fixation for medial meniscus posterior root radial tears (MMPRTs).
Seven fresh knees from mature pigs were used. Each knee was tested under 5 conditions: normal knee, MMPRT, pullout fixation with simple sutures, fixation with modified Mason-Allen sutures, and all-inside fixation using Fastfix 360. The peak contact pressure and contact surface area were evaluated using a capacitive sensor positioned between the meniscus and tibial plateau, under a 1,000-N compression force, at different flexion angles (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°).
The peak contact pressure was significantly higher in MMPRTs than in normal knees (P = .018). Although the peak contact pressure decreased significantly after fixation at all flexion angles (P = .031), it never recovered to the values noted in the normal meniscus. No difference was observed among fixation groups (P = .054). The contact surface area was significantly lower in MMPRTs than in the normal meniscus (P = .018) and increased significantly after fixation at all flexion angles (P = .018) but did not recover to within normal limits. For all flexion angles except 60°, the contact surface area was significantly higher for fixation with Mason-Allen sutures than for fixation with simple sutures or all-inside fixation (P = .027). At 90° of flexion, the contact surface area was significantly better for fixation with simple sutures than for all-inside fixation (P = .031).
The peak contact pressure and contact surface area improved significantly after fixation, regardless of the fixation method, but did not recover to the levels noted in the normal meniscus after any type of fixation. Among the fixation methods evaluated in this time 0 study, fixation using modified Mason-Allen sutures provided a superior contact surface area compared with that noted after fixation using simple sutures or all-inside fixation, except at 60° of flexion. However, this study had insufficient power to accurately detect the differences between the outcomes of various fixation methods.
Our results in a porcine model suggest that fixation can restore tibiofemoral contact mechanics in MMPRT and that fixation with a locking mechanism leads to superior biomechanical properties. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.041 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1991188045</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S074980631731277X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1991188045</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-9e1e2e355449b3ebbc6bd1f8f33066ea7b0fd6ce02e05362c88f524f9087f9423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1uEzEUhS0EomnhDRDyks0M_hvPeIMURZRWagSqBraWx3OtOprYwXYqeCceEocUlqzu4n7n3J-D0BtKWkqofL9rTSoPKbaM0L4lqiWCPkMr2jHZcMbpc7QivVDNQCS_QJc57wghnA_8JbpgikvZC75CvzZxfzDJ5xhwdHj0k48O9jGZBW9iKMYWvAX7YIK3Ga9dgYS_VT4eMx6TCblURWVNmPF6WZrbkP0M-Nr_MMVXz7Fqg_9-hIxdTNVqPtFbCD7bavEl5uroa-c-xoLvzZ_2CCZl7AM2FUjWB8DbOMPyCr1wZsnw-qleoa_XH8fNTXP3-dPtZn3XWMGG0iigwIB3nRBq4jBNVk4zdYPjnEgJpp-Im6UFwoB0XDI7DK5jwiky9E4Jxq_Qu7PvIcXT6kXv67qwLCZAPVxTpSgdBiK6ioozalPMOYHTh-T3Jv3UlOhTTnqnzznpU06aKF1zqrK3TxOO0x7mf6K_wVTgwxmAeuejh6Sz9RBs_V8CW_Qc_f8n_AY6-Kjl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1991188045</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics After Various Transtibial and All-Inside Fixation Techniques for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Radial Tears in a Porcine Model</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Chung, Kyu Sung ; Choi, Choong Hyeok ; Bae, Tae Soo ; Ha, Jeong Ku ; Jun, Dal Jae ; Wang, Joon Ho ; Kim, Jin Goo</creator><creatorcontrib>Chung, Kyu Sung ; Choi, Choong Hyeok ; Bae, Tae Soo ; Ha, Jeong Ku ; Jun, Dal Jae ; Wang, Joon Ho ; Kim, Jin Goo</creatorcontrib><description>To compare tibiofemoral contact mechanics after fixation for medial meniscus posterior root radial tears (MMPRTs).
Seven fresh knees from mature pigs were used. Each knee was tested under 5 conditions: normal knee, MMPRT, pullout fixation with simple sutures, fixation with modified Mason-Allen sutures, and all-inside fixation using Fastfix 360. The peak contact pressure and contact surface area were evaluated using a capacitive sensor positioned between the meniscus and tibial plateau, under a 1,000-N compression force, at different flexion angles (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°).
The peak contact pressure was significantly higher in MMPRTs than in normal knees (P = .018). Although the peak contact pressure decreased significantly after fixation at all flexion angles (P = .031), it never recovered to the values noted in the normal meniscus. No difference was observed among fixation groups (P = .054). The contact surface area was significantly lower in MMPRTs than in the normal meniscus (P = .018) and increased significantly after fixation at all flexion angles (P = .018) but did not recover to within normal limits. For all flexion angles except 60°, the contact surface area was significantly higher for fixation with Mason-Allen sutures than for fixation with simple sutures or all-inside fixation (P = .027). At 90° of flexion, the contact surface area was significantly better for fixation with simple sutures than for all-inside fixation (P = .031).
The peak contact pressure and contact surface area improved significantly after fixation, regardless of the fixation method, but did not recover to the levels noted in the normal meniscus after any type of fixation. Among the fixation methods evaluated in this time 0 study, fixation using modified Mason-Allen sutures provided a superior contact surface area compared with that noted after fixation using simple sutures or all-inside fixation, except at 60° of flexion. However, this study had insufficient power to accurately detect the differences between the outcomes of various fixation methods.
Our results in a porcine model suggest that fixation can restore tibiofemoral contact mechanics in MMPRT and that fixation with a locking mechanism leads to superior biomechanical properties.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-8063</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-3231</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.041</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29366743</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Femur - physiopathology ; Knee Injuries - surgery ; Knee Joint - physiopathology ; Knee Joint - surgery ; Menisci, Tibial - physiopathology ; Menisci, Tibial - surgery ; Orthopedic Procedures - methods ; Postoperative Period ; Pressure ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Sus scrofa ; Suture Techniques ; Sutures ; Tibia - physiopathology ; Tibial Meniscus Injuries - surgery</subject><ispartof>Arthroscopy, 2018-04, Vol.34 (4), p.1060-1068</ispartof><rights>2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-9e1e2e355449b3ebbc6bd1f8f33066ea7b0fd6ce02e05362c88f524f9087f9423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-9e1e2e355449b3ebbc6bd1f8f33066ea7b0fd6ce02e05362c88f524f9087f9423</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2602-820X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.041$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29366743$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chung, Kyu Sung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Choong Hyeok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bae, Tae Soo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ha, Jeong Ku</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jun, Dal Jae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Joon Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jin Goo</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics After Various Transtibial and All-Inside Fixation Techniques for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Radial Tears in a Porcine Model</title><title>Arthroscopy</title><addtitle>Arthroscopy</addtitle><description>To compare tibiofemoral contact mechanics after fixation for medial meniscus posterior root radial tears (MMPRTs).
Seven fresh knees from mature pigs were used. Each knee was tested under 5 conditions: normal knee, MMPRT, pullout fixation with simple sutures, fixation with modified Mason-Allen sutures, and all-inside fixation using Fastfix 360. The peak contact pressure and contact surface area were evaluated using a capacitive sensor positioned between the meniscus and tibial plateau, under a 1,000-N compression force, at different flexion angles (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°).
The peak contact pressure was significantly higher in MMPRTs than in normal knees (P = .018). Although the peak contact pressure decreased significantly after fixation at all flexion angles (P = .031), it never recovered to the values noted in the normal meniscus. No difference was observed among fixation groups (P = .054). The contact surface area was significantly lower in MMPRTs than in the normal meniscus (P = .018) and increased significantly after fixation at all flexion angles (P = .018) but did not recover to within normal limits. For all flexion angles except 60°, the contact surface area was significantly higher for fixation with Mason-Allen sutures than for fixation with simple sutures or all-inside fixation (P = .027). At 90° of flexion, the contact surface area was significantly better for fixation with simple sutures than for all-inside fixation (P = .031).
The peak contact pressure and contact surface area improved significantly after fixation, regardless of the fixation method, but did not recover to the levels noted in the normal meniscus after any type of fixation. Among the fixation methods evaluated in this time 0 study, fixation using modified Mason-Allen sutures provided a superior contact surface area compared with that noted after fixation using simple sutures or all-inside fixation, except at 60° of flexion. However, this study had insufficient power to accurately detect the differences between the outcomes of various fixation methods.
Our results in a porcine model suggest that fixation can restore tibiofemoral contact mechanics in MMPRT and that fixation with a locking mechanism leads to superior biomechanical properties.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Femur - physiopathology</subject><subject>Knee Injuries - surgery</subject><subject>Knee Joint - physiopathology</subject><subject>Knee Joint - surgery</subject><subject>Menisci, Tibial - physiopathology</subject><subject>Menisci, Tibial - surgery</subject><subject>Orthopedic Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Postoperative Period</subject><subject>Pressure</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular</subject><subject>Sus scrofa</subject><subject>Suture Techniques</subject><subject>Sutures</subject><subject>Tibia - physiopathology</subject><subject>Tibial Meniscus Injuries - surgery</subject><issn>0749-8063</issn><issn>1526-3231</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1uEzEUhS0EomnhDRDyks0M_hvPeIMURZRWagSqBraWx3OtOprYwXYqeCceEocUlqzu4n7n3J-D0BtKWkqofL9rTSoPKbaM0L4lqiWCPkMr2jHZcMbpc7QivVDNQCS_QJc57wghnA_8JbpgikvZC75CvzZxfzDJ5xhwdHj0k48O9jGZBW9iKMYWvAX7YIK3Ga9dgYS_VT4eMx6TCblURWVNmPF6WZrbkP0M-Nr_MMVXz7Fqg_9-hIxdTNVqPtFbCD7bavEl5uroa-c-xoLvzZ_2CCZl7AM2FUjWB8DbOMPyCr1wZsnw-qleoa_XH8fNTXP3-dPtZn3XWMGG0iigwIB3nRBq4jBNVk4zdYPjnEgJpp-Im6UFwoB0XDI7DK5jwiky9E4Jxq_Qu7PvIcXT6kXv67qwLCZAPVxTpSgdBiK6ioozalPMOYHTh-T3Jv3UlOhTTnqnzznpU06aKF1zqrK3TxOO0x7mf6K_wVTgwxmAeuejh6Sz9RBs_V8CW_Qc_f8n_AY6-Kjl</recordid><startdate>201804</startdate><enddate>201804</enddate><creator>Chung, Kyu Sung</creator><creator>Choi, Choong Hyeok</creator><creator>Bae, Tae Soo</creator><creator>Ha, Jeong Ku</creator><creator>Jun, Dal Jae</creator><creator>Wang, Joon Ho</creator><creator>Kim, Jin Goo</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2602-820X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201804</creationdate><title>Comparison of Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics After Various Transtibial and All-Inside Fixation Techniques for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Radial Tears in a Porcine Model</title><author>Chung, Kyu Sung ; Choi, Choong Hyeok ; Bae, Tae Soo ; Ha, Jeong Ku ; Jun, Dal Jae ; Wang, Joon Ho ; Kim, Jin Goo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-9e1e2e355449b3ebbc6bd1f8f33066ea7b0fd6ce02e05362c88f524f9087f9423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Femur - physiopathology</topic><topic>Knee Injuries - surgery</topic><topic>Knee Joint - physiopathology</topic><topic>Knee Joint - surgery</topic><topic>Menisci, Tibial - physiopathology</topic><topic>Menisci, Tibial - surgery</topic><topic>Orthopedic Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Postoperative Period</topic><topic>Pressure</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular</topic><topic>Sus scrofa</topic><topic>Suture Techniques</topic><topic>Sutures</topic><topic>Tibia - physiopathology</topic><topic>Tibial Meniscus Injuries - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chung, Kyu Sung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Choong Hyeok</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bae, Tae Soo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ha, Jeong Ku</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jun, Dal Jae</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Joon Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jin Goo</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Arthroscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chung, Kyu Sung</au><au>Choi, Choong Hyeok</au><au>Bae, Tae Soo</au><au>Ha, Jeong Ku</au><au>Jun, Dal Jae</au><au>Wang, Joon Ho</au><au>Kim, Jin Goo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics After Various Transtibial and All-Inside Fixation Techniques for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Radial Tears in a Porcine Model</atitle><jtitle>Arthroscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Arthroscopy</addtitle><date>2018-04</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1060</spage><epage>1068</epage><pages>1060-1068</pages><issn>0749-8063</issn><eissn>1526-3231</eissn><abstract>To compare tibiofemoral contact mechanics after fixation for medial meniscus posterior root radial tears (MMPRTs).
Seven fresh knees from mature pigs were used. Each knee was tested under 5 conditions: normal knee, MMPRT, pullout fixation with simple sutures, fixation with modified Mason-Allen sutures, and all-inside fixation using Fastfix 360. The peak contact pressure and contact surface area were evaluated using a capacitive sensor positioned between the meniscus and tibial plateau, under a 1,000-N compression force, at different flexion angles (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°).
The peak contact pressure was significantly higher in MMPRTs than in normal knees (P = .018). Although the peak contact pressure decreased significantly after fixation at all flexion angles (P = .031), it never recovered to the values noted in the normal meniscus. No difference was observed among fixation groups (P = .054). The contact surface area was significantly lower in MMPRTs than in the normal meniscus (P = .018) and increased significantly after fixation at all flexion angles (P = .018) but did not recover to within normal limits. For all flexion angles except 60°, the contact surface area was significantly higher for fixation with Mason-Allen sutures than for fixation with simple sutures or all-inside fixation (P = .027). At 90° of flexion, the contact surface area was significantly better for fixation with simple sutures than for all-inside fixation (P = .031).
The peak contact pressure and contact surface area improved significantly after fixation, regardless of the fixation method, but did not recover to the levels noted in the normal meniscus after any type of fixation. Among the fixation methods evaluated in this time 0 study, fixation using modified Mason-Allen sutures provided a superior contact surface area compared with that noted after fixation using simple sutures or all-inside fixation, except at 60° of flexion. However, this study had insufficient power to accurately detect the differences between the outcomes of various fixation methods.
Our results in a porcine model suggest that fixation can restore tibiofemoral contact mechanics in MMPRT and that fixation with a locking mechanism leads to superior biomechanical properties.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>29366743</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.041</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2602-820X</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0749-8063 |
| ispartof | Arthroscopy, 2018-04, Vol.34 (4), p.1060-1068 |
| issn | 0749-8063 1526-3231 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1991188045 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Animals Biomechanical Phenomena Femur - physiopathology Knee Injuries - surgery Knee Joint - physiopathology Knee Joint - surgery Menisci, Tibial - physiopathology Menisci, Tibial - surgery Orthopedic Procedures - methods Postoperative Period Pressure Range of Motion, Articular Sus scrofa Suture Techniques Sutures Tibia - physiopathology Tibial Meniscus Injuries - surgery |
| title | Comparison of Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics After Various Transtibial and All-Inside Fixation Techniques for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Radial Tears in a Porcine Model |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T23%3A49%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Tibiofemoral%20Contact%20Mechanics%20After%20Various%20Transtibial%20and%20All-Inside%20Fixation%20Techniques%20for%20Medial%20Meniscus%20Posterior%20Root%20Radial%20Tears%20in%20a%20Porcine%20Model&rft.jtitle=Arthroscopy&rft.au=Chung,%20Kyu%20Sung&rft.date=2018-04&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1060&rft.epage=1068&rft.pages=1060-1068&rft.issn=0749-8063&rft.eissn=1526-3231&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.041&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1991188045%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1991188045&rft_id=info:pmid/29366743&rft_els_id=S074980631731277X&rfr_iscdi=true |