Superior load‐to‐failure in an all‐suture anchor system for all‐inside meniscal repair compared to a PEEK‐cage anchor system in an experimental cadaveric test setting

• DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.12110
• Publication Date: 2024-07-25T05:41:58Z
• Authors: Lorenz Pichler; Gyula Kiss; Thomas Sator; Andrea Schuller; Sam A. Kandathil; Marcus Hofbauer; Thomas Koch; Lena Hirtler; Thomas Tiefenboeck
• Keywords: Orthopedic surgery; Original Paper; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; PEEK‐cage anchor; all‐suture anchor; save the mensicus; meniscal repair; RD701-811; arthroscopy

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a latest generation all‐suture anchor repair device (ASARD) for meniscal repair with that of a latest generation PEEK‐cage anchor repair device (PCARD) in an experimental setting using cadaveric menisci.MethodsTwenty‐six menisci were obtained from the knees of fresh body donors. Artificially created meniscal lesions were treated randomly, using a single stitch with either an ASARD or a PCARD. Cyclic biomechanical testing, utilising a universal material testing machine and following an established protocol, was carried out and load‐to‐failure (LTF), displacement, stiffness, and mode‐of‐failure (MOF) reported.ResultsMean LTF was found to be 61% higher in the ASARD group at 107.10 N (standard deviation [SD], 42.34), compared to 65.86 N (SD, 27.42) in the PCARD group with statistical significance (p = 0.022). The ASARD exhibited a trend towards higher stiffness (10.35 N; SD, 3.92 versus 7.78 N; SD; 3.59) and higher displacement at cycles one, 100, and 499 (1.64, 3.27, and 4.17 mm versus 0.93, 2.19, and 2.83 mm) compared to the PCARD. Cheese wiring was the most common mode‐of‐failure in both groups (76.9%).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that an ASARD shows a higher mean LTF than a PCARD when compared in an experimental biomechanical setting.Level of evidenceLevel III