Wijdicks, Coen A

Background: Optimized surgical fixation and meniscal stabilization during rehabilitation increase healing success. However, the latest generation of all-inside devices has not yet been biomechanically compared with inside-out suture tape (IO-ST) repair. Hypothesis: (1) The contact area of a suture anchor (SA) would compensate for a meniscal defect better than polyether ether ketone anchors (PA); (2) adjustable tensioning for all-inside meniscal repair fixation would result in higher initial load than IO-ST repair; and (3) stiffer constructs would decrease secondary displacement. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: This study investigates human menisci (N = 39) via microscopic imaging and a biomechanical testing protocol. For the imaging protocol, needles of an all-inside SA or PA device and an IO-ST device were inserted after staining to measure the iatrogenic defect created by the needle insertion (n = 20) and the length, width, and meniscus contact area of deployed all-inside anchors (n = 6). For biomechanical testing, menisci with longitudinal bucket handle tears were prepared, and single stitches were repaired (each n = 9). After suture tensioning (50 N) and fixation, initial load, initial stiffness, and relief displacement were measured. Constructs underwent cyclic loading between 2 and 20 N, with 10,000 cycles (0.75 Hz), and stiffness and displacement were measured. Ultimate stiffness and load-to-failure were analyzed at 3.15 mm/sec. Results: All-inside needles created greater iatrogenic meniscal defects ( P < .001) than IO-ST repair. While PAs were longer ( P < .001), SAs were wider with a greater meniscal contact area (both P < .001). IO-ST repair resulted in the lowest initial load ( P < .001) and relief displacement ( P < .001), whereas SA repair resulted in a higher initial load ( P < .007) and stiffness ( P < .023) than PA repair. The overall stiffer SA fixation ( P < 001) significantly reduced cyclic displacement compared with other repairs ( P < .044). The PA group failed due to an anchor fracture at a significantly lower load (84.3 ± 10.7 N; P < .001) than the IO-ST (136.4 ± 10.5 N) and the SA repair (122.1 ± 17.5 N), with a suture-based failure mode. The ultimate stiffness of SA constructs was higher ( P < .045) than that of other repairs. Conclusion: While all-inside devices showed improved primary stability, the IO-ST construct demonstrated the highest load-to-failure. In a human cadaveric model, meniscal repair with a more compact and conforming SA was stiffer and reduced cyclic displacement compared with PA and IO-ST repair. Clinical Relevance: All-inside SA repair improved primary stability. Future clinical series will define the overall significance of healing rates.

Background: Various metrics have emerged for assessing scientific impact, most of which are based on complex calculations and, in many cases, are not freely available. Moreover, most of these metrics are not intended for assessing the scientific impact of research groups. Cumulative group metrics are proposed as an efficient and cost-effective strategy for measuring group scientific impact. Materials and methods: The authors collected peer-reviewed output in 2020 from two academic orthopedic surgery departments [University of Michigan (UM) and Mayo Clinic Rochester (MC)] and one medical device research department [Arthrex Inc. (AI)]. The sites evaluated the Cumulative Group Number of Publications (CGNP), Cumulative Journal Impact Factor (CJIF), Cumulative CiteScore (CCS), Cumulative SCImago Journal Rank (CSJR), and Cumulative Source Normalized Impact per Paper (CSNIP) for the three institutions. Results: In 2020, UM published 159 peer-reviewed studies, MC published 347 peer-reviewed studies, and AI supported 141 publications. The UM publications achieved a CJIF of 513, a CCS of 891, a CSJR of 255, and a CSNIP of 247. The MC publications achieved a CJIF of 956, a CCS of 1568, a CSJR of 485, and a CSNIP of 508. AI-supported publications achieved a CJIF of 314, a CCS of 598, a CSJR of 189, and a CSNIP of 189. Conclusion: The presented cumulative group metrics are an effective tool to assess the scientific impact of a research group. The cumulative submetrics can further evaluate research groups compared with other departments due to field normalization. Department leadership and funding agencies can utilize these metrics to evaluate research output quantitatively and qualitatively.