Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2024
Neither All-Inside, nor Inside-Out, nor Outside-In Repair Demonstrates Superior Biomechanical Properties for Vertical Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review of Human Cadaveric Studies.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Desai Sohil S, Czerwonka Natalia, Farah Omar, Ruberto R Alex, Mueller John D, Ferrer Xavier, Chahla Jorge, Trofa David P, Swindell Hasani W
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature regarding the biomechanical properties of different repair techniques and fixation methods for vertically oriented meniscal tears.
METHODS: Human cadaveric studies evaluating the biomechanical properties of different repair techniques for vertically oriented meniscal tears were identified using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health databases. Primary outcomes included load to failure, displacement, stiffness, peak contact pressure, and contact area of repaired menisci. Repair techniques from included studies were reclassified into a total of 19 distinct all-inside (AI), inside-out (IO), or outside-in (OI) techniques.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included (420 total menisci). Contact pressure and area were restored to intact-state values across all 5 compressive load studies at low knee flexion angles but not at greater knee flexion angles (i.e., >60°). There were no significant differences in contact pressure or area between AI, IO, and OI techniques across all studies. Some studies demonstrated statistically significant advantages in tensile properties with IO techniques when compared with AI techniques, whereas others found AI techniques to be superior. No studies directly compared tensile properties of OI techniques with those of AI or IO techniques. Vertical mattress suture configurations resulted in significantly greater load to failure and decreased displacement compared with horizontal mattress configurations in 67% of studies comparing the 2 techniques. There was no difference in the rate of tissue failure in AI (66.97%), IO (60.38%), or OI (66.67%, χ2 = 0.83, P = .66) techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Contact mechanics are reliably restored after repair of vertical meniscal tears at low flexion angles but inconsistently restored at greater flexion angles, regardless of technique. Vertical mattress configurations outperformed horizontal mattress configurations under tensile load. There are conflicting data regarding the comparison of tensile properties between AI and IO techniques. Ultimately, neither AI, IO, nor OI repair demonstrated superior biomechanical properties in the present literature.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Several repair techniques demonstrate favorable biomechanical properties for vertical meniscal tears under tensile and compressive loads. Neither AI, IO, nor OI repair techniques demonstrate superior biomechanical properties at this time.
METHODS: Human cadaveric studies evaluating the biomechanical properties of different repair techniques for vertically oriented meniscal tears were identified using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health databases. Primary outcomes included load to failure, displacement, stiffness, peak contact pressure, and contact area of repaired menisci. Repair techniques from included studies were reclassified into a total of 19 distinct all-inside (AI), inside-out (IO), or outside-in (OI) techniques.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included (420 total menisci). Contact pressure and area were restored to intact-state values across all 5 compressive load studies at low knee flexion angles but not at greater knee flexion angles (i.e., >60°). There were no significant differences in contact pressure or area between AI, IO, and OI techniques across all studies. Some studies demonstrated statistically significant advantages in tensile properties with IO techniques when compared with AI techniques, whereas others found AI techniques to be superior. No studies directly compared tensile properties of OI techniques with those of AI or IO techniques. Vertical mattress suture configurations resulted in significantly greater load to failure and decreased displacement compared with horizontal mattress configurations in 67% of studies comparing the 2 techniques. There was no difference in the rate of tissue failure in AI (66.97%), IO (60.38%), or OI (66.67%, χ2 = 0.83, P = .66) techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Contact mechanics are reliably restored after repair of vertical meniscal tears at low flexion angles but inconsistently restored at greater flexion angles, regardless of technique. Vertical mattress configurations outperformed horizontal mattress configurations under tensile load. There are conflicting data regarding the comparison of tensile properties between AI and IO techniques. Ultimately, neither AI, IO, nor OI repair demonstrated superior biomechanical properties in the present literature.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Several repair techniques demonstrate favorable biomechanical properties for vertical meniscal tears under tensile and compressive loads. Neither AI, IO, nor OI repair techniques demonstrate superior biomechanical properties at this time.