Analysis of a new all-inside versus inside-out technique for repairing radial meniscal tears.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare gap formation, strength, and stiffness of repaired radial tears of the meniscus treated using a new all-inside technique versus a traditional inside-out suture technique. METHODS: Radial tears were created in 36 fresh-frozen porcine menisci. Repairs were performed using a novel all-inside suture-based meniscal repair device or an inside-out technique. The repairs were tested for cyclic loading and load to failure. The displacement, response to cyclic loading (100, 300, and 500 cycles), and mode of failure were recorded, and the construct's stiffness was calculated. RESULTS: The all-inside repairs using the novel device resulted in a significantly lower displacement (gap formation) after 100, 300, and 500 cycles (P = .002, P = .001, and P = .001, respectively). The ultimate load to failure was significantly greater for the all-inside repairs (111.61 N v 95.01 N; P = .03). The all-inside repairs showed greater stiffness (14.53 N/mm v 11.19 N/mm; P = .02). The all-inside repairs failed most often by suture breakage (suture failure). The inside-out repairs failed most commonly when the suture pulled through the tissue (tissue failure) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For repair of radial tears of the meniscus, the vertical suture configuration created by the all-inside technique resulted in lower displacement, higher load to failure, and greater stiffness compared with the horizontal inside-out technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In a porcine specimen meniscus repair model, the biomechanical properties of a vertical all-inside technique were superior to that of a horizontal inside-out technique. Future studies of biomechanical and clinical outcomes in human meniscal repairs with this device are warranted to explore whether this repair method is valuable to clinical practice and patient outcomes.

Biomechanical evaluation of an all-inside suture-based device for repairing longitudinal meniscal tears.

PURPOSE: A device for all-inside suture-based meniscal repairs has been introduced (NovoStitch; Ceterix, Menlo Park, CA) that passes the suture vertically through the meniscus, thereby encircling the tear, and does not require an additional incision or extra-capsular anchors. Our aim was to compare this all-inside suture-based repair with an inside-out suture repair and an all-inside anchor-based repair (FasT-Fix 360°; Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA). METHODS: Longitudinal tears were created in 36 fresh-frozen porcine menisci. Repairs were performed using an all-inside suture-based meniscal repair device, an all-inside anchor-based repair, and an inside-out suture repair. They were tested with cyclic loading and load-to-failure testing. The displacement, response to cyclic loading (100, 300, and 500 cycles), and mode of failure were recorded. The stiffness of the constructs was calculated as well. RESULTS: The all-inside suture-based repairs and the inside-out repairs showed significantly higher loads to failure than the all-inside anchor-based repairs. The stiffness values for the 3 repairs were not different. There were no differences in initial displacement. After 100, 300, and 500 cycles, the inside-out repair had higher gap formation (displacement) than the other 2 groups. Suture failure was the predominant mode of failure across all repair techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The all-inside suture-based repairs and inside-out repairs did not exhibit different load-to-failure values. In addition, the all-inside suture-based repairs and the all-inside anchor-based repairs did not exhibit different displacement values during cyclic loading. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When addressing a longitudinal meniscal tear, surgeons should consider biomechanical data of various repair devices and techniques in their decision-making process to maximize the mechanical strength and healing probability of the repair.