Forkel Philipp, Foehr Peter, Meyer Johannes C, Herbst Elmar, Petersen Wolf, Brucker Peter U, Burgkart Rainer, Imhoff Andreas B
Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Department of Orthopaedics, Technische Universität München (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Feb;25(2):403-410. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4237-4. Epub 2016 Jul 11.
The purpose of the present study was to biomechanically compare three different posterior meniscal root repair techniques. Transtibial fixation of a posterior meniscus root tear (PMRT) combined with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction via one tunnel only shows similar properties in terms of cyclic loading and load to failure compared with direct anchor fixation.
Twenty-eight porcine knees were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 7 each): (1) native posterior meniscal root, (2) suture anchor repair, (3) refixation via a tibial ACL tunnel in combination with an interference screw fixation of the ACL graft, and (4) refixation via a tibial ACL tunnel in combination with an interference screw fixation of the ACL graft with an additional extracortical button fixation. The four groups underwent cyclic loading followed by a load-to-failure testing. Construct elongation during 1000 cycles, dynamic stiffness, attenuation, maximum force during load-to-failure testing, and failure mode were recorded.
All reconstructions showed a significant lower maximum load (p < 0.0001) compared with the native meniscal root. The elongation for the transtibial fixation via the ACL tunnel without an additional extracortical backup fixation was significantly higher compared with the suture anchor technique (p < 0.0001). The additional use of a backup fixation led to similar results compared with the anchor repair technique.
The transtibial refixation of the meniscal root can be combined with an ACL reconstruction using the same tibial bone tunnel. However, an additional extracortical backup fixation is necessary. This might avoid a slippage of suture material and a failure of meniscus root fixation.
本研究旨在对三种不同的后交叉半月板根部修复技术进行生物力学比较。仅通过一个隧道进行后交叉半月板根部撕裂(PMRT)的经胫骨固定并联合前交叉韧带(ACL)重建,与直接锚定固定相比,在循环加载和破坏载荷方面显示出相似的特性。
将28个猪膝关节随机分为4组(每组n = 7):(1)天然后交叉半月板根部;(2)缝线锚钉修复;(3)经胫骨ACL隧道重新固定并联合ACL移植物的干涉螺钉固定;(4)经胫骨ACL隧道重新固定并联合ACL移植物的干涉螺钉固定及额外的皮质外纽扣固定。四组均接受循环加载,随后进行破坏载荷测试。记录1000次循环中的结构伸长、动态刚度、衰减、破坏载荷测试中的最大力以及破坏模式。
与天然半月板根部相比,所有重建的最大载荷均显著降低(p < 0.0001)。与缝线锚钉技术相比,经ACL隧道的经胫骨固定且无额外皮质外备用固定时的伸长显著更高(p < 0.0001)。与锚钉修复技术相比,额外使用备用固定导致了相似的结果。
半月板根部的经胫骨重新固定可与使用相同胫骨骨隧道的ACL重建相结合。然而,需要额外的皮质外备用固定。这可能避免缝线材料的滑动和半月板根部固定的失败。