Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2091788886> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2091788886 endingPage "834" @default.
- W2091788886 startingPage "827" @default.
- W2091788886 abstract "Purpose To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of recently introduced ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene suture–based, self-adjusting meniscal repair devices. Methods Updating a prior study published in 2009, we made vertical longitudinal cuts 3 mm from the periphery in fresh-frozen adult human menisci to simulate a bucket-handle meniscus tear. Each tear was then repaired by a single repair technique in 10 meniscus specimens. Group 1 menisci were repaired with a vertical mattress suture of No. 2-0 Ethibond (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). Group 2 menisci were repaired with a vertical mattress suture of No. 2-0 OrthoCord (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA). Group 3 menisci were repaired with a single OmniSpan device with No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture (DePuy Mitek). Group 4 menisci were repaired with a single Meniscal Cinch device with No. 2-0 FiberWire suture (Arthrex, Naples, FL). Group 5 menisci were repaired with a single MaxFire device inserted with the MarXmen gun (Biomet Sports Medicine, Warsaw, IN). Group 6 menisci were repaired with a Sequent device with No. 0 Hi-Fi suture (ConMed Linvatec, Largo, FL) in a “V” suture configuration. Group 7 menisci were repaired with a single FasT-Fix 360 device (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA). By use of a mechanical testing machine, all samples were preloaded at 5 N and cycled 200 times between 5 and 50 N. Those specimens that survived were destructively tested at 5 mm/min. Endpoints included maximum load, displacement, stiffness, and failure mode. Results Mean failure loads were as follows: Ethibond suture, 73 N; OrthoCord suture, 88 N; OmniSpan, 88 N; Cinch, 71 N; MarXmen/MaxFire, 54 N; Sequent, 66 N; and FasT-Fix 360, 60 N. Ethibond was stronger than MarXmen/MaxFire. The mean displacement after 100 cycles was as follows: Ethibond, 2.58 mm; OrthoCord, 2.75 mm; OmniSpan, 2.51 mm; Cinch, 2.65 mm; MarXmen/MaxFire, 3.67 mm; Sequent, 3.35 mm; and FasT-Fix 360, 1.13 mm. The MarXmen/MaxFire showed greater 100-cycle displacement than Ethibond and FasT-Fix 360. No difference in stiffness existed for these devices, and failure mode varied without specific trends. Conclusions The biomechanical properties of meniscal repairs using the OmniSpan, Cinch, Sequent, and FasT-Fix 360 devices are equivalent to suture repair techniques. However, the MarXmen/MaxFire meniscal repair device showed significantly lower failure loads and survived less cyclic loading in the human cadaveric meniscus than other tested repairs. Clinical Relevance Most commercially available devices for all-inside meniscal repair using ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene suture provide fixation comparable to the classic vertical mattress suture repair technique in human cadaveric meniscus. To evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of recently introduced ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene suture–based, self-adjusting meniscal repair devices. Updating a prior study published in 2009, we made vertical longitudinal cuts 3 mm from the periphery in fresh-frozen adult human menisci to simulate a bucket-handle meniscus tear. Each tear was then repaired by a single repair technique in 10 meniscus specimens. Group 1 menisci were repaired with a vertical mattress suture of No. 2-0 Ethibond (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). Group 2 menisci were repaired with a vertical mattress suture of No. 2-0 OrthoCord (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA). Group 3 menisci were repaired with a single OmniSpan device with No. 2-0 OrthoCord suture (DePuy Mitek). Group 4 menisci were repaired with a single Meniscal Cinch device with No. 2-0 FiberWire suture (Arthrex, Naples, FL). Group 5 menisci were repaired with a single MaxFire device inserted with the MarXmen gun (Biomet Sports Medicine, Warsaw, IN). Group 6 menisci were repaired with a Sequent device with No. 0 Hi-Fi suture (ConMed Linvatec, Largo, FL) in a “V” suture configuration. Group 7 menisci were repaired with a single FasT-Fix 360 device (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA). By use of a mechanical testing machine, all samples were preloaded at 5 N and cycled 200 times between 5 and 50 N. Those specimens that survived were destructively tested at 5 mm/min. Endpoints included maximum load, displacement, stiffness, and failure mode. Mean failure loads were as follows: Ethibond suture, 73 N; OrthoCord suture, 88 N; OmniSpan, 88 N; Cinch, 71 N; MarXmen/MaxFire, 54 N; Sequent, 66 N; and FasT-Fix 360, 60 N. Ethibond was stronger than MarXmen/MaxFire. The mean displacement after 100 cycles was as follows: Ethibond, 2.58 mm; OrthoCord, 2.75 mm; OmniSpan, 2.51 mm; Cinch, 2.65 mm; MarXmen/MaxFire, 3.67 mm; Sequent, 3.35 mm; and FasT-Fix 360, 1.13 mm. The MarXmen/MaxFire showed greater 100-cycle displacement than Ethibond and FasT-Fix 360. No difference in stiffness existed for these devices, and failure mode varied without specific trends. The biomechanical properties of meniscal repairs using the OmniSpan, Cinch, Sequent, and FasT-Fix 360 devices are equivalent to suture repair techniques. However, the MarXmen/MaxFire meniscal repair device showed significantly lower failure loads and survived less cyclic loading in the human cadaveric meniscus than other tested repairs." @default.
- W2091788886 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2091788886 creator A5003702060 @default.
- W2091788886 creator A5020855251 @default.
- W2091788886 creator A5034225943 @default.
- W2091788886 creator A5085724808 @default.
- W2091788886 date "2012-06-01" @default.
- W2091788886 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W2091788886 title "Biomechanical Testing of Suture-Based Meniscal Repair Devices Containing Ultrahigh-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene Suture: Update 2011" @default.
- W2091788886 cites W1968505197 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W1969552102 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W1981284854 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W1983170770 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W1985693628 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W1994332187 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2004170821 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2010066769 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2011739356 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2022678844 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2039962870 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2043694089 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2046882161 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2047373859 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2053700120 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2080034060 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2081061967 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2085772857 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2089006496 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2090016991 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2102002795 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2106543498 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2106984274 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2109968915 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2115821423 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2117738670 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2145676703 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2146845549 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2147217238 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2151382432 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2151924814 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2158685362 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2158881347 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2160510144 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2170063957 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2171265124 @default.
- W2091788886 cites W2425797354 @default.
- W2091788886 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2011.11.020" @default.
- W2091788886 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22317797" @default.
- W2091788886 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
- W2091788886 type Work @default.
- W2091788886 sameAs 2091788886 @default.
- W2091788886 citedByCount "48" @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862012 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862013 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862014 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862015 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862016 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862017 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862018 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862019 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862020 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862021 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862022 @default.
- W2091788886 countsByYear W20917888862023 @default.
- W2091788886 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2091788886 hasAuthorship W2091788886A5003702060 @default.
- W2091788886 hasAuthorship W2091788886A5020855251 @default.
- W2091788886 hasAuthorship W2091788886A5034225943 @default.
- W2091788886 hasAuthorship W2091788886A5085724808 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C107551265 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C189178095 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C2776164576 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C2776410324 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C2777327002 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C2779162959 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C2780423099 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C2988617437 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C61511704 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConceptScore W2091788886C107551265 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConceptScore W2091788886C120665830 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConceptScore W2091788886C121332964 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConceptScore W2091788886C141071460 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConceptScore W2091788886C142724271 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConceptScore W2091788886C15744967 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConceptScore W2091788886C159985019 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConceptScore W2091788886C189178095 @default.
- W2091788886 hasConceptScore W2091788886C192562407 @default.