Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-analysis on biomechanical properties of meniscus repairs: are devices better than sutures?

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Meniscal repair devices have been extensively tested during the past decades as reported in the literature. Reviewing the different meniscal repair devices and sutures with their respective biomechanical properties.

Methods

For this meta-analysis, we conducted a systematic online search using PubMed, EMBASE, CCTR, and CINAHL using the search terms Meniscus OR Meniscal AND Biomechanics AND Repair). Load-to-failure (LtF), stiffness, and cyclic outcome measures were extracted independently and in duplicate. The systematic search revealed 841 manuscripts in total. After exclusion of duplicates and irrelevant publications, 41 studies remained for final analysis. The studies were published in English and German from 1995 to 2013. Due to differing cyclic force protocols, cyclic outcomes had to be excluded.

Results

Overall, sutures had a higher LtF [suture: 87.7 ± 0.3 N (weighted mean ± standard error), device: 56.3 ± 0.1 N] and stiffness (suture: 8.9 ± 0.04 N/mm, device: 8.6 ± 0.04 N/mm) than devices, both p < 0.05. In LfT testing, PDS 0 Vertical (145.0 ± 8.1 N), OrthoCord 2-0 (143.6 ± 11.3 N), and Ethibond No 0 Vertical (133.4 ± 7.7 N) were the strongest sutures and Meniscal Viper (140.9 ± 5.1 N), MaxFire Vertical (136.2 ± 11.3 N), and FasT-Fix Vertical (115.2 ± 1.6 N) were the strongest devices. Second-generation devices were significantly stronger and stiffer than first-generation devices (p < 0.001).

Clinical relevance

Suture repair remains the gold standard with a vertically oriented suture configuration showing superior LtF values compared to a horizontal configuration. Nevertheless, some meniscal repair devices have similar biomechanical properties to suture repairs. Both suture repairs and devices have a place in meniscal restoration.

Level of evidence

None, meta-analysis of controlled laboratory studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albrecht-Olsen P, Lind T, Kristensen G, Falkenberg B (1997) Failure strength of a new meniscus arrow repair technique: biomechanical comparison with horizontal suture. Arthroscopy 13(2):183–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen CR, Wong EK, Livesay GA, Sakane M, Fu FH, Woo SL (2000) Importance of the medial meniscus in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. J Orthop Res 18(1):109–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Allen PR, Denham RA, Swan AV (1984) Late degenerative changes after meniscectomy: factors affecting the knee after operation. J Bone Jt Surg Br 66(5):666–671

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson K, Marx RG, Hannafin J, Warren RF (2000) Chondral injury following meniscal repair with a biodegradable implant. Arthroscopy 16(7):749–753

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Aros BC, Pedroza A, Vasileff WK, Litsky AS, Flanigan DC (2010) Mechanical comparison of meniscal repair devices with mattress suture devices in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(11):1594–1598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barber FA, Ma Herbert, Bava ED, Drew OR (2012) Biomechanical testing of suture-based meniscal repair devices containing ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene suture: update 2011. Arthroscopy 28(6):827–834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barber FA, Ma Herbert, Richards DP (2004) Load to failure testing of new meniscal repair devices. Arthroscopy 20(1):45–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barber FA, Herbert MA, Schroeder FA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Sutker MJ (2009) Biomechanical testing of new meniscal repair techniques containing ultra high-molecular weight polyethylene suture. Arthroscopy 25(9):959–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barber FA, Schroeder FA, Oro FB, Beavis RC (2008) FasT-Fix meniscal repair: mid-term results. Arthroscopy 24(12):1342–1348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barrett GR, Richardson K, Ruff CG, Jones A (1997) The effect of suture type on meniscus repair: a clinical analysis. Am J Knee Surg 10(1):2–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Becker R, Brettschneider O, Grobel KH, von Versen R, Starke C (2006) Distraction forces on repaired bucket-handle lesions in the medial meniscus. Am J Sports Med 34(12):1941–1947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bedi A, Kelly N, Baad M, Fox AJ, Ma Y, Warren RF, Maher SA (2012) Dynamic contact mechanics of radial tears of the lateral meniscus: implications for treatment. Arthroscopy 28(3):372–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boenisch UW, Faber KJ, Ciarelli M, Steadman JR, Arnoczky SP (1999) Pull-out strength and stiffness of meniscal repair using absorbable arrows or Ti-Cron vertical and horizontal loop sutures. Am J Sports Med 27(5):626–631

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Borden P, Nyland J, Caborn DNM, Pienkowski D (2003) Biomechanical comparison of the FasT-Fix meniscal repair suture system with vertical mattress sutures and meniscus arrows. Am J Sports Med 31(3):374–378

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chang HC, Nyland J, Caborn DNM, Burden R (2005) Biomechanical evaluation of meniscal repair systems: a comparison of the Meniscal Viper repair system, the vertical mattress FasT-Fix Device, and vertical mattress ethibond sutures. Am J Sports Med 33(12):1846–1852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dervin GF, Downing KJ, Keene GC, McBride DG (1997) Failure strengths of suture versus biodegradable arrow for meniscal repair: an in vitro study. Arthroscopy 13(3):296–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dürselen L, Schneider J, Galler M, Claes LE, Bauer G (2003) Cyclic joint loading can affect the initial stability of meniscal fixation implants. Clin Biomech 18(1):44–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellermann A, Siebold R, Buelow JU, Sobau C (2002) Clinical evaluation of meniscus repair with a bioabsorbable arrow: a 2- to 3-year follow-up study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10(5):289–293

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fisher SR, Markel DC, Koman JD, Atkinson TS (2002) Pull-out and shear failure strengths of arthroscopic meniscal repair systems. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10(5):294–299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gunes T, Bostan B, Erdem M, Asci M, Sen C, Kelestemur MH (2009) Biomechanical evaluation of arthroscopic all-inside meniscus repairs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17(11):1347–1353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gunes T, Bostan B, Erdem M, Asci M, Sen C, Kelestemur MH (2011) The “butterfly” suture technique for meniscal repair. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(3):331–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jani MM (2004) Mechanical properties of bioabsorbable meniscal arrows as a function of tear location: an ex vivo experimental study. Am J Sports Med 32(3):666–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Joshi MD, Suh JK, Marui T, Woo SL (1995) Interspecies variation of compressive biomechanical properties of the meniscus. J Biomed Mater Res 29(7):823–828

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kocabey Y, Chang HC, Brand JC, Nawab A, Nyland J, Caborn DNM (2006) A biomechanical comparison of the FasT-Fix meniscal repair suture system and the RapidLoc device in cadaver meniscus. Arthroscopy 22(4):406–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kocabey Y, Taser O, Nyland J, Doral MN, Demirhan M, Caborn DNM, Sarban S (2006) Pullout strength of meniscal repair after cyclic loading: comparison of vertical, horizontal, and oblique suture techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(10):998–1003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Krause WR, Pope MH, Johnson RJ, Wilder DG (1976) Mechanical changes in the knee after meniscectomy. J Bone Jt Surg Am 58(5):599–604

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Aa Lamprakis, Fortis AP, Kostopoulos V, Vlasis K (2009) Biomechanical testing of a shape memory alloy suture in a meniscal suture model. Arthroscopy 25(6):632–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Markolf KL, Mensch JS, Amstutz HC (1976) Stiffness and laxity of the knee—the contributions of the supporting structures: a quantitative in vitro study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 58(5):583–594

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. McCann L, Ingham E, Jin Z, Fisher J (2009) Influence of the meniscus on friction and degradation of cartilage in the natural knee joint. Osteoarthr Cartil 17(8):995–1000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McDermott ID, Amis AA (2006) The consequences of meniscectomy. J Bone Jt Surg Br 88(12):1549–1556

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Meakin JR, Shrive NG, Frank CB, Hart DA (2003) Finite element analysis of the meniscus: the influence of geometry and material properties on its behaviour. Knee 10(1):33–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mehta VM, Terry MA (2009) Cyclic testing of 3 all-inside meniscal repair devices: a biomechanical analysis. Am J Sports Med 37(12):2435–2439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354(9193):1896–1900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):1006–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rankin CC, Lintner DM, Noble PC, Paravic V, Greer E (2002) A biomechanical analysis of meniscal repair techniques. Am J Sports Med 30(4):492–497

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Renstrom P, Johnson RJ (1990) Anatomy and biomechanics of the menisci. Clin Sports Med 9(3):523–538

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Richards DP, Barber FA, Herbert MA (2005) Compressive loads in longitudinal lateral meniscus tears: a biomechanical study in porcine knees. Arthroscopy 21(12):1452–1456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rimmer MG, Nawana NS, Keene GC, Pearcy MJ (1995) Failure strengths of different meniscal suturing techniques. Arthroscopy 11(2):146–150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rodkey WG (2000) Basic biology of the meniscus and response to injury. Instr Course Lect 49:189–193

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rosso C, Kovtun K, Dow W, McKenzie B, Nazarian A, Deangelis JP, Ramappa AJ (2011) Comparison of all-inside meniscal repair devices with matched inside-out suture repair. Am J Sports Med 39(12):2634–2639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Seedhom BB, Dowson D, Wright V (1974) Proceedings: functions of the menisci. A preliminary study. Ann Rheum Dis 33(1):111

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sequeira MM, Rickenbach M, Wietlisbach V, Tullen B, Schutz Y (1995) Physical activity assessment using a pedometer and its comparison with a questionnaire in a large population survey. Am J Epidemiol 142(9):989–999

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Song EK, Lee KB (1999) Biomechanical test comparing the load to failure of the biodegradable meniscus arrow versus meniscal suture. Arthroscopy 15(7):726–732

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Staerke C, Bochwitz C, Groebel K-H, Unterhauser F, Becker R (2004) The effect of meniscus compression on the biomechanical properties of repaired meniscal lesions. Winner of the AGA-DonJoy Award 2003. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124(4):221–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Voloshin AS, Wosk J (1983) Shock absorption of meniscectomized and painful knees: a comparative in vivo study. J Biomed Eng 5(2):157–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Xu C, Zhao J (2013) A meta-analysis comparing meniscal repair with meniscectomy in the treatment of meniscal tears: the more meniscus, the better outcome? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Epub ahead of print]

  47. Zantop T (2004) Initial fixation strength of flexible all-inside meniscus suture anchors in comparison to conventional suture technique and rigid anchors: biomechanical evaluation of new meniscus refixation systems. Am J Sports Med 32(4):863–869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Zantop T (2005) Cyclic testing of flexible all-inside meniscus suture anchors: biomechanical analysis. Am J Sports Med 33(3):388–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zantop T, Eggers AK, Musahl V, Weimann A, Hassenpflug J, Petersen W (2004) A new rigid biodegradable anchor for meniscus refixation: biomechanical evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 12(4):317–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Zantop T, Temmig K, Weimann A, Eggers AK, Raschke MJ, Petersen W (2006) Elongation and structural properties of meniscal repair using suture techniques in distraction and shear force scenarios: biomechanical evaluation using a cyclic loading protocol. Am J Sports Med 34(5):799–805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all the authors whose studies we analysed for their contribution. Dr. Buckland thanks the Whitaker International Foundation for fellowship support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Department, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland

    Daniel M. Buckland, Patrick Vavken, Geert I. Pagenstert, Victor Valderrabano & Claudio Rosso

  2. University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Daniel M. Buckland, Patrick Vavken, Geert I. Pagenstert, Victor Valderrabano & Claudio Rosso

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria

    Patrick Sadoghi

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Matthias D. Wimmer

  5. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Matthias D. Wimmer

  6. Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Patrick Vavken

  7. Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Patrick Vavken

Authors
  1. Daniel M. Buckland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Sadoghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthias D. Wimmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Vavken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Geert I. Pagenstert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Victor Valderrabano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Claudio Rosso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Rosso.

Additional information

Patrick Sadoghi and Dan Buckland have contributed equally to this work.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

167_2014_2966_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx

Supplementary material Overview over the studies included. This table shows the studies included into our study as well as the Journal, the year of publication and the species. (XLSX 205 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

M. Buckland, D., Sadoghi, P., Wimmer, M.D. et al. Meta-analysis on biomechanical properties of meniscus repairs: are devices better than sutures?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23, 83–89 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2966-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2966-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation