Alentorn-Geli Eduard, Choi J H James, Stuart Joseph J, Toth Alison P, Garrett William E, Taylor Dean C, Moorman Claude T
Duke Sports Sciences Institute, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
J Knee Surg. 2016 Oct;29(7):604-612. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1570113. Epub 2015 Dec 30.
The purpose was to evaluate which meniscal repair technique for radial tears of the midbody of the lateral meniscus demonstrates the best biomechanical properties. An electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ScienceDirect databases. Biomechanical studies investigating the repair characteristics of radial tears in the midbody of the lateral meniscus were included. After appropriate screening, a total of 54 studies were reviewed in detail (full text), and 6 met inclusion criteria. The most common cause of exclusion was the investigation of longitudinal tears. Only two studies could be meta-analyzed. Stiffness was significantly higher for all-inside compared with inside-out repair techniques ( = 0.0009). No significant differences were observed between both suture methods for load to failure ( = 0.45). However, both studies used different all-inside devices and suture constructs. No clear conclusions can be drawn from the comparison of both types of repairs for displacement, site of failure, or contact pressure changes. Overall, there are no conclusive data to suggest that inside-out or outside-in suture repair has better load to failure or stiffness, less displacement, or different site of failure compared with all-inside repair. According to biomechanical data, it is under surgeon's preference to elect one repair technique over the other.
目的是评估哪种外侧半月板体部放射状撕裂的半月板修复技术具有最佳的生物力学性能。使用PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL和ScienceDirect数据库进行了电子文献检索。纳入了研究外侧半月板体部放射状撕裂修复特征的生物力学研究。经过适当筛选,共详细审查了54项研究(全文),其中6项符合纳入标准。最常见的排除原因是对纵向撕裂的研究。只有两项研究可以进行荟萃分析。与由内向外修复技术相比,全内修复技术的刚度显著更高( = 0.0009)。两种缝合方法在失效载荷方面未观察到显著差异( = 0.45)。然而,两项研究使用了不同的全内装置和缝合结构。对于位移、失效部位或接触压力变化,两种修复类型的比较无法得出明确结论。总体而言,没有确凿数据表明与全内修复相比,由内向外或由外向内缝合修复具有更好的失效载荷或刚度、更小的位移或不同的失效部位。根据生物力学数据,选择一种修复技术而非另一种取决于外科医生的偏好。