Arthrosopic knot pushers. Does one size fit all?

Summary Little is known about how knot‐pusher design affects arthroscopic knot tying. In our practice, we observed the knot‐pusher riding onto the arthroscopic knot at the point of maximum tightening. This can lead to snagging of the knot, which is undesirable as it may lead to loosening of, or damage to the knot. The aim of this study is to determine the optimum size of a knot‐pusher to efficiently push the knot without overriding or snagging it.We used an apparatus to model arthropcopic knot tying. Ten examples each of the Duncan loop were tied under controlled conditions of load using one polydioxanone (PDS) monofilament absorbable suture (Ethicon, Livingston, UK), two Ethibond, two Fibrewire and two Panacryl. The loop of the knot was then secured and a 50 N force applied to tension the knot. The suture diameter was measured. Then the knot diameter was measured in two planes using an analogue micrometer. The internal diameter of a Mitek knot‐pusher was measured.The mean maximum diameter for each knot was respectively PDS, 2.061 ± 0.13 mm; Panacryl, 1.907 ± 0.14 mm; Ethibond, 1.717 ± 0.16 mm and Fibrewire, 1.654 ± 0.14 mm. There were significant differences in size between knots tied with different materials except between Ethibond and Fibrewire where the difference was not significant. For each set of knots the smallest maximum knot diameter observed was identified. This was respectively PDS, 1.92 mm; Ethibond, 1.476 mm; Fibrewire, 1.488 mm and Panacryl, 1.715 mm. The internal diameter of a Mitek knot‐pusher was found to be 1.95 mm.The current Mitek knot‐pusher appears to be well suited to one PDS and two Panacryl. It appears less ideal for two Ethibond and two Fibrewire. One knot‐pusher does not fit all and we suggest that different knot‐pushers be used for different suture materials.