Medial meniscal extrusion greater than 4 mm reduces medial tibiofemoral compartment contact area: a biomechanical analysis of tibiofemoral contact area and pressures with varying amounts of meniscal extrusion.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the contact areas, contact pressures, and peak pressures in the medial compartment of the knee in six sequential testing conditions. The secondary objective is to establish how much the medial meniscus is able to extrude, secondary to soft tissue injury while keeping its roots intact. METHODS: Ten cadaveric knees were dissected and tested in six conditions: (1) intact meniscus, (2) 2 mm extrusion, (3) 3 mm extrusion, (4) 4 mm extrusion, (5) maximum extrusion, (6) capsular based meniscal repair. Knees were loaded with a 1000-N axial compressive force at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° for each condition. Medial compartment contact area, average contact pressure, and peak contact pressure data were recorded. RESULTS: When compared to the intact state, there was no statistically significant difference in medial compartment contact area at 2 mm of extrusion or 3 mm of extrusion (n.s.). There was a statistically significant decrease in contact area compared to the intact state at 4 mm (p = 0.015) and maximum extrusion (p < 0.001). The repair state was able to improve medial compartment contact area, and there was no statistically significant difference between the repair and the intact states (n.s.). No significant differences were found in the average contact pressure between the repair, intact, or maximum extrusion conditions at any flexion angle (n.s.). No significant differences were found in the peak contact pressure between the repair, intact, or maximum extrusion conditions at any flexion angle (n.s.). CONCLUSION: In this in vitro model, medial meniscus extrusion greater than 4 mm reduced medial compartment contact area, but meniscal extrusion did not significantly increase pressure in the medial compartment. Additionally, meniscal centralization was effective in restoring the medial tibiofemoral contact area to intact state when the meniscal extrusion was secondary to meniscotibial ligament injury. The diagnosis of meniscal extrusion may not necessarily involve meniscal root injury. Since it is known that meniscal extrusion greater than 3 or 4 mm has a biomechanical impact on tibiofemoral compartment contact area and pressures, specific treatments can be established. Centralization restored medial compartment contact area to the intact state.

Footprint coverage comparison between knotted and knotless techniques in a single-row rotator cuff repair: biomechanical analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this biomechanical study is to compare two variations of single-row knotless techniques (Knotless repair and Rip-stop Knotless repair) against a single-row double-loaded anchor (DL) repair, focused on evaluating contact pressure and contact area amongst three different single-row techniques for rotator cuff repairs. METHODS: A total of 24 fresh frozen human shoulders were tested. Specimens were randomly assigned into one of the three single-row (SR) repair groups: A Knotted single-row double-loaded anchor (DL) repair, a Knotless (K) repair, or a Knotless Rip-Stop (KRS) repair. The footprint was measured after complete detachment of the supraspinatus tendon from the greater tuberosity, introducing pressure sensors between bony footprint and detached rotator cuff, and finally reconstructing it. All specimens were mounted onto a servohydraulic test system to analyze contact variables at 0° and 30° of abduction with 0 N, 30 N and 50 N of tension. RESULTS: Groups did not differ significantly in their footprint sizes: DL group 359.75 ± 58.37 mm2, K group 386.5 ± 102.13 mm2, KRS group 415.87 ± 93.80 mm2 (p = 0.84); nor in bone mineral density: DL group 0.25 ± 0.14 g/cm2, K group 0.32 ± 0.19 g/cm2, KRS group 0.32 ± 0.13 g/cm2, (p = 0.75) or average age. The highest mean pressurized contact area measured for the K repair was 248.1 ± 50.9 mm2, which equals a reconstruction of 67.1 ± 19.3% at 0° abduction and a 50 N supraspinatus load. This reconstructed area was significantly greater compared with the DL repair 152.8 ± 73.1 mm2, reconstructing 42.0 ± 18.5% on average when under the same conditions (p = 0.04). The mean contact pressure did not significantly differ amongst groups (p = 1.0): DL group 30.8 ± 17.4 psi, K group 30.9 ± 17.4 psi and KRS group 30.0 ± 10.9 psi. Neither the 30° abduction angle nor the supraspinatus load had a significant influence on the contact pressure in our study. CONCLUSION: Both single-row knotless techniques resulted in significantly higher footprint reconstruction, providing larger contact area and a more uniform pressure distribution when compared with the single-row Knotted techniques. The mean contact pressure did not differ among groups significantly. These knotless techniques may be an alternative if the surgeon decides to perform a single-row rotator cuff repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic Science Study, Biomechanics.