Meniscal repair devices

Meniscal repair devices not requiring accessory incisions are attractive, M any factors contribute to their clinical effectiveness including their biom echanical characteristics. This study compared several new meniscal repair devices with standard meniscal suture techniques, Using a porcine model, ax is-of-insertion loads were applied to various meniscal sutures and repair d evices. A single device or stitch was placed in a created meniscal tear and a load applied. Both loads and modes of failure were recorded. The load-to -failure data show stratification into 4 distinct statistical groups. Group A, 113 N for a double vertical stitch; group B, 80 N for a single vertical stitch; group C, 57 N for the BioStinger, 56 N for a horizontal mattress s titch, and 50 N for the T-Fix stitch; and group D, 33 N for the Meniscus Ar row (inserted by hand or gun), 32 N for the Clearfix screw, 31 N for the SD sorb staple, 30 N for the Mitek meniscal repair system, and 27 N for the Bi omet staple. The failure mechanism varied. Sutures broke away from the knot . The Meniscus Arrow and BioStinger pulled through the inner rim with the c rossbar intact. The Clearfix screw failed by multiple mechanisms, whereas 1 leg of the SDsorb staple always pulled out of the outer rim. The Mitek dev ice usually failed by pullout from the inner rim. The Biomet staple always broke at the crosshead or just below it. Although the surgeon should be awa re of the material properties of the repair technique chosen for a meniscal repair, this information is only an indication of device performance and m ay not correlate with clinical healing results.