Institut für Medizintechnik und Medizininformatik

Dauerhafte URI für die Sammlunghttps://irf.fhnw.ch/handle/11654/23

Listen

Filter

2014 - 201912020 - 20211

Einstellungen

Autor:in: search.filters.author.Schwenk, Tanja

Ergebnisse nach Hochschule und Institut

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 2 von 2
  • Kein Vorschaubild vorhanden
    Publikation
    All-inside meniscal repair devices compared with their matched inside-out Vertical mattress suture repair. Introducing 10,000 and 100,000 loading cycles
    (SAGE, 01.09.2014) Rosso, Claudio; Müller, Sebastian; Buckland, Daniel M.; Schwenk, Tanja; Zimmermann, Simon; de Wild, Michael; Valderrabano, Victor
    All-inside arthroscopic meniscal repairs are favored by most clinicians because of their lower complication rate and decreased morbidity compared with inside-out techniques. Until now, only 1000 cycles have been used for biomechanical testing. Hypothesis: All-inside meniscal repairs will show inferior biomechanical response to cyclic loading (up to 100,000 cycles) and load-to-failure testing compared with inside-out suture controls. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Bucket-handle tears in 72 porcine menisci were repaired using the Omnispan and Fast-Fix 360 (all-inside devices) and Orthocord 2-0 and Ultrabraid 2-0 sutures (matched controls). Initial displacement, displacement after cyclic loading (100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000, and 100,000 cycles) between 5 and 20 N, ultimate load to failure, and mode of failure were recorded, as well as stiffness. Results: Initial displacement and displacement after cyclic loading were not different between the groups. The Omnispan repair demonstrated the highest load-to-failure force (mean 6 SD, 151.3 6 21.5 N) and was significantly stronger than all the other constructs (Orthocord 2-0, 105.5 6 20.4 N; Ultrabraid 2-0, 93.4 6 22.5 N; Fast-Fix 360, 76.6 6 14.2 N) (P \ .0001 for all). The Orthocord vertical inside-out mattress repair was significantly stronger than the Fast-Fix 360 repair (P = .003). The Omnispan (30.8 6 3.5 N/mm) showed significantly higher stiffness compared with the Ultrabraid 2-0 (22.9 6 6.9 N/mm, P \ .0001) and Fast-Fix 360 (23.7 6 3.9 N/mm, P = .001). The predominant mode of failure was suture failure. Conclusion: All-inside meniscal devices show comparable biomechanical properties compared with inside-out suture repair in cyclic loading, even after 100,000 cycles. Clinical Relevance: Eight to 10 weeks of rehabilitation might not pose a problem for all repairs in this worst-case scenario.
    01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
  • Vorschaubild
    Publikation
    Increased construct stiffness with meniscal repair sutures and devices increases the risk of cheese-wiring during biomechanical load-to-failure testing
    (SAGE, 15.06.2021) Müller, Sebastian; Schwenk, Tanja; de Wild, Michael; Dimitrou, Dimitris; Rosso, Claudio
    Background: Cheese-wiring, the suture that cuts through the meniscus, is a well-known issue in meniscal repair. So far, contributing factors are neither fully understood nor sufficiently studied. Hypothesis/purpose: To investigate whether the construct stiffness of repair sutures and devices correlates with suture cut-through (cheese-wiring) during load-to-failure testing. Study design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: In 131 porcine menisci, longitudinal bucket-handle tears were repaired using either inside-out sutures (n = 66; No. 0 Ultrabraid, 2-0 Orthocord, 2-0 FiberWire, and 2-0 Ethibond) or all-inside devices (n = 65; FastFix360, Omnispan, and Meniscal Cinch). After cyclic loading, load-to-failure testing was performed. The mode of failure and construct stiffness were recorded. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to define the optimal stiffness threshold for predicting meniscal repair failure by cheese-wiring. The 2-tailed t test and analysis of variance were used to test significance. Results: Loss of suture fixation was the most common mode of failure in all specimens (58%), except for the Omnispan, which failed most commonly because of anchor pull-through. The Omnispan demonstrated the highest construct stiffness (30.8 ± 3.5 N/mm), whereas the Meniscal Cinch (18.0 ± 8.8 N/mm) and Ethibond (19.4 ± 7.8 N/mm) demonstrated the lowest construct stiffness. The Omnispan showed significantly higher stiffness compared with the Meniscal Cinch (P < .001) and Ethibond (P = .02), whereas the stiffness of the Meniscal Cinch was significantly lower compared with that of the FiberWire (P = .01), Ultrabraid (P = .04), and FastFix360 (P = .03). While meniscal repair with a high construct stiffness more often failed by cheese-wiring, meniscal repair with a lower stiffness failed by loss of suture fixation, knot slippage, or anchor pull-through. Meniscal repair with a stiffness >26.5 N/mm had a 3.6 times higher risk of failure due to cheese-wiring during load-to-failure testing (95% CI, 1.4-8.2; P < .0001). Conclusion: Meniscal repair using inside-out sutures and all-inside devices with a higher construct stiffness (>26.5 N/mm) was more likely to fail through suture cut-through (cheese-wiring) than that with a lower stiffness (≤26.5 N/mm). Clinical relevance: This is the first study investigating the impact of construct stiffness on meniscal repair failure by suture cut-through (cheese-wiring).
    01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift