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: Recent biomechanical evidence for adjustable suture anchor (ASA)–based posterior medial meniscus root (PMMR) fixation has shown promising results compared with conventional transtibial pull-out repair (TPOR). However, ASA fixation has not been evaluated in human tissue to 100,000 cycles. Hypothesis: ASA repair would lead to increased primary fixation strength and less cyclic displacement than conventional TPORs. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 32 human medial menisci were used, 8 of which were intact specimens and served as native controls. For the others, PMMR tears were created and repaired using 3 different techniques (n = 8 group). Two conventional PMMR repairs were prepared consisting of two No. 2 simple sutures (TSS) and two No. 2 sutures in a Mason-Allen (MA) configuration, all tied over a cortical button. The knotless ASA repair was fixed in MA with repair sutures tensioned at 120 N (MA-120). The repairs’ initial force, stiffness, and relief displacement from the tensioned state toward repair unloading (2 N) were measured after fixation. All repair constructs were loaded for 100,000 cycles, with displacement and stiffness measured, and finally were pulled to failure. Results: The TPORs demonstrated similar primary fixation and cyclic loading behavior except for initial cyclic displacement (cycle 10). The ASA repair provided a higher initial repair load ( P < .001) and stiffness ( P < .001) with relief displacement similar to conventional TPORs. Lower initial cyclic displacement ( P < .011; cycle 10) with overall higher repair stiffness ( P < .011) resulted in significantly lower displacement ( P < .001) throughout testing for ASA repair. Although both TPORs were completely loose after 100,000 cycles, the ASA repair achieved near-native dynamic meniscal stabilization. The TSS repair had lower overall ultimate load ( P < .001) and ultimate stiffness ( P < .023) compared with the ASA repair. All repairs had lower ultimate stiffness and loads than the native meniscus ( P < .001). Conclusion: The ASA repair resulted in improved primary PMMR fixation that was stiffer with less cyclic displacement than conventional TPORs and approached that of the human meniscal function after 100,000 load cycles in a cadaveric model. However, all repair techniques had lower ultimate strength than the native human PMMR. Clinical Relevance: Knotless ASA meniscus root fixation resulted in higher tissue compression and less displacement in a cadaveric model; however, future clinical series with surveillance imaging will define the overall significance of healing rates.

Background: While posterior medial meniscus root (PMMR) techniques have evolved, there remains a need to both optimize repair strength and improve resistance to cyclic loading. Hypothesis: Adjustable tensioning would lead to higher initial repair strength and reduce displacement with cyclic loading compared with previously described transtibial pull-out repair (TPOR) fixation techniques. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 56 porcine medial menisci were used. Eight intact specimens served as a control for the native meniscus. For the others, PMMR tears were created and repaired with 6 different TPOR techniques (8 in each group). Fixed PMMR repairs were executed using 4 different suture techniques (two No. 2 cinch sutures, two cinch tapes, two No. 2 simple sutures, and two No. 2 sutures in a Mason-Allen configuration) all tied over a cortical button. Adjustable PMMR repairs using Mason-Allen sutures were fixed with an adjustable soft tissue anchor fixation tensioned at either 80 N or 120 N. The initial force, stiffness, and relief displacement of the repairs were measured after fixation. Repair constructs were then cyclically loaded, with cyclic displacement and stiffness measured after 1000 cycles. Finally, the specimens were pulled to failure. Results: The PMMR repaired with the 2 cinch sutures fixed technique afforded the lowest ( P < .001) initial repair load, stiffness, and relief displacement. The adjustable PMMR repairs achieved a higher initial repair load ( P < .001) and relief displacement ( P < .001) than all fixed repairs. The 2 cinch sutures fixed technique showed an overall higher cyclic displacement ( P < .028) and was completely loose compared with the native meniscus functional zone. Repairs with adjustable intratunnel fixation showed displacement with cyclic loading similar to the native meniscus. With cyclic loading, the Mason-Allen adjustable repair with 120 N of tension showed less displacement ( P < .016) than all fixed repairs and a stiffness comparable to the fixed Mason-Allen repair. The fixed Mason-Allen technique demonstrated a higher ultimate load ( P < .007) than the adjustable Mason-Allen techniques. All repairs were less stiff, with lower ultimate failure loads, than the native meniscus root attachment ( P < .0001). Conclusion: Adjustable TPOR led to considerably higher initial repair load and relief displacement than other conventional fixed repairs and restricted cyclic displacement to match the native meniscus function. However, the ultimate failure load of the adjustable devices was lower than that of a Mason-Allen construct tied over a cortical button. All repair techniques had a significantly lower load to failure than the native meniscus root. Clinical Relevance: Knotless adjustable PMMR repair based on soft anchor fixation results in higher tissue compression and less displacement, but the overall clinical significance on healing rates remains unclear.

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.

Objectives: Objectives: Previous analyses have characterized the incidence of lateral meniscus oblique radial tears (LMORT) commonly seen with ACL tears, and their impact on joint and meniscus stability in the presence of ACL deficiency. Purpose: To determine the clinically relevant kinematics associated with LMORT lesions untreated versus arthroscopic repair versus partial meniscectomy in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: Sixteen cadaver knees underwent robotic testing for anterior drawer (AD) and pivot shift (PS) simulations at multiple knee flexion angles in intact and ACL-deficient states, followed by sequential testing of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction (ACLR), creation of a LMORT 3 lesion, LMORT 3 repair, and partial meniscectomy (PM; n=8). The same testing sequence was performed for LMORT 4 lesions (n=8). Changes (Δ) from the intact state for anterior translation, internal rotation, and valgus displacements, as well as ultrasoundographic measurements of meniscal extrusion, were measured and comparatively analyzed. Results: ACLR restored kinematics in ACL-deficient knees to intact levels for all metrics tested. For AD, ACLR + LMORT3 tear and PM resulted in significantly greater anterior translation (0.8-2.1 mm differences) compared to ACL-intact at all angles ( P < 0.05) and compared to ACLR at 60 o and 90 o ( P < 0.014). For PS, ACLR + LMORT3 tear had significantly more anterior translation (1-1.4 mm differences) at 15 o than intact knees (P=0.041), and at 0 o and 15 o for PM ( P < 0.03). ACLR + LMORT4 tear and PM resulted in significantly greater anterior translation (0.9-2.3 mm differences) for AD ( P < 0.04) and PS testing ( P < 0.05) compared to intact and ACLR knees at all angles tested. ACLR+LMORT 3 repair and ACLR+LMORT4 repair restored kinematics to ACLR and intact levels at all angles tested. ACLR + LMORT3 tear ( P < 0.008) and both LMORT4 tear and PM ( P < 0.05) resulted in increased meniscal extrusion (1.8-11 mm differences) compared to intact and ACLR statuses at all tested angles for AD and PS while repairs restored meniscus stability to ACLR and intact levels. Conclusions: Untreated LMORT 3 and 4 tears increased anterior translation, pivot shift, and meniscus extrusion even after ACLR, while partial meniscectomy further exacerbated these detrimental effects. In contrast, arthroscopic side-to-side repair of LMORT lesions effectively restored measured knee kinematics. UPLOAD- https://planion-client-files.s3.amazonaws.com/AOSSM/blobs/6bf43418-abf1-49bd-b78b-cc0c501a2da0/1/AOSSM_Abstract_Images.docx UPLOAD- https://planion-client-files.s3.amazonaws.com/AOSSM/blobs/b0f0bf53-a166-4cec-bf73-176ea452b905/1/AOSSM_Abstract_CHART.docx

Background: Lateral meniscal oblique radial tears (LMORTs) affect joint and meniscal stability in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)–deficient knees. Purpose: To determine the clinically relevant kinematics associated with the most common posterior horn LMORT lesion types, types 3 (LMORT3) and 4 (LMORT4), untreated versus arthroscopic repair versus partial meniscectomy in combination with ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Study: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Sixteen cadaveric knees underwent robotic testing for anterior drawer and pivot-shift simulations at multiple knee flexion angles in ACL-intact and ACL-deficient states, followed by sequential testing of arthroscopic ACLR, LMORT3 lesion, LMORT3 repair, and partial meniscectomy (n = 8). The same testing sequence was performed for LMORT4 lesions (n = 8). Results: ACLR restored kinematics in ACL-deficient knees to intact levels for all metrics tested. For anterior drawer, ACLR + LMORT3 tear and partial meniscectomy resulted in significantly greater anterior translation compared with ACL-intact at all angles ( P < .05) and compared with ACLR at 60° and 90° ( P < .014). For pivot shift, compared with ACL-intact knees, ACLR + LMORT3 tear resulted in significantly more anterior translation at 15° ( P = .041); and for ACLR + partial meniscectomy, at both 0° and 15° ( P < .03). ACLR + LMORT4 tear and partial meniscectomy resulted in significantly greater anterior translation for anterior drawer ( P < .04) and pivot-shift testing ( P < .05) compared with intact and ACLR knees at all angles tested. ACLR + LMORT3 repair and ACLR + LMORT4 repair restored kinematics to ACLR and intact levels at all angles tested. ACLR + LMORT3 tear ( P < .008) and both LMORT4 tear and partial meniscectomy ( P < .05) resulted in increased meniscal extrusion compared with intact and ACLR statuses at all tested angles for anterior drawer and pivot shift, while repairs restored meniscal stability to ACLR and intact levels. Conclusion: Untreated LMORT tears increased anterior translation, pivot shift, and meniscal extrusion after ACLR, while partial meniscectomy further exacerbated these detrimental effects in this cadaveric model. In contrast, arthroscopic side-to-side repair of LMORT lesions effectively restored measured knee kinematics. Clinical Relevance: LMORT lesions are common with ACL tears and adversely affect joint stability and meniscal extrusion. This study highlights the importance of repair of LMORT 3 and 4 lesions at the time of ACLR.

Background: Primary device fixation and the resistance against gap formation during repetitive loading influence the quality of meniscal repair. There are limited biomechanical data comparing primary tensioning and cyclic behavior of all-inside versus inside-out repair. Hypothesis: All-inside devices provide higher initial load on the meniscal repair than inside-out fixation, and stiffer constructs show higher resistance against gap formation during cyclic loading. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: In total, 60 longitudinal bucket-handle tears in human cadaveric menisci were created and repaired with a single stitch and randomly assigned to 4 all-inside groups (TrueSpan, FastFix 360, Stryker AIR, FiberStich) and 2 inside-out groups (suture repair [IO-S], suture tape [IO-ST]). Residual load after repair tensioning (50 N) and relief displacement were measured. Constructs underwent cyclic loading between 2 and 20 N over 500 cycles (0.75 Hz) with cyclic stiffness, gap formation, and final peak elongation measured. Ultimate load and stiffness were analyzed during pull to failure (3.15 mm/s). Results: All-inside repair demonstrated significantly higher primary fixation strength than inside-out repair. The significantly highest load (mean ± SD; 20.1 ± 0.9 N; P < .037) and relief displacement (–2.40 ± 0.32 mm; P < .03) were for the knotless soft anchoring FiberStich group. The lowest initial load (9.0 ± 1.5 N; P < .001) and relief displacement (–1.39 ± 0.26 mm; P < .045) were for the IO-S repair group. The final gap formation (500th cycle) of FiberStich (0.75 ± 0.37 mm; P < .02) was significantly smaller than others and that of the IO-S (1.47 ± 0.33 mm; P < .045) significantly larger. The construct stiffness of the FiberStich and IO-ST groups was significantly greater at the end of cyclic testing (16.7 ± 0.80 and 15.5 ± 1.42 N/mm; P < .042, respectively) and ultimate failure testing (23.4 ± 3.6 and 20.6 ± 2.3 N/mm; P < .005). The FastFix 360 (86.4 ± 4.8 N) and Stryker AIR (84.4 ± 4.6 N) groups failed at a significantly lower load than the IO-S group ( P < .02) with loss of anchor support. The FiberStich (146.8 ± 23.4 N), TrueSpan (142.0 ± 17.8 N), and IO-ST (139.4 ± 7.3 N) groups failed at significantly higher loads ( P < .02) due to suture tearing. Conclusion: Overall, primary fixation strength of inside-out meniscal repair was significantly lower than all-inside repair in this cadaveric tissue model. Although absolute differences among groups were small, meniscal repairs with higher construct stiffness (IO-ST, FiberStich) demonstrated increased resistance against gap formation and failure load. Clinical Relevance: Knotless single-stitch all-inside meniscal repair with a soft anchor resulted in less gapping, but the overall clinical significance on healing rates remains unclear.

Background: Lateral meniscal oblique radial tears (LMORT) occur frequently in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) disruption and are anatomically distinct from meniscus root tears. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects of LMORT types 3 (LMORT3) and 4 (LMORT4) lesions on joint stability and meniscal extrusion in ACL-deficient knees. Our hypothesis was that both lesions would promote significant increases in anterior translation and meniscal extrusion, with the LMORT4 lesion having a greater effect. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Two matched pairs of cadaveric knees (n = 4) were used to optimize the testing sequence. Additional cadaveric knees with LMORT3 (n = 8) and LMORT4 (n = 8) lesions created after ACL transection underwent robotic kinematic testing for anterior drawer and pivot-shift simulations with associated ultrasound-measured meniscal extrusion at clinically relevant knee flexion angles. Results: Optimization testing showed no differences on the effect of LMORT4 lesions for anterior translation and lateral meniscal extrusion with ACL-intact versus ACL-deficient knees. ACL deficiency and LMORT3 and LMORT4 lesions with ACL deficiency were associated with significantly greater anterior translation compared with ACL-intact state for both anterior drawer and pivot-shift testing at all flexion angles ( P < .001). ACL deficiency with either LMORT3 or LMORT4 lesion was associated with significantly greater anterior translation than was ACL deficiency only ( P < .005) for anterior drawer testing at 90° of flexion. Meniscal extrusion was greater with LMORT3 and LMORT4 lesions compared with ACL deficiency only ( P < .05) for anterior drawer at 60° of flexion and for pivot shift at 15° of flexion. The LMORT4 lesion demonstrated increased anterior translation for anterior drawer ( P = .003) at 60° of flexion (12%) as well as for pivot shift at 15° of flexion (7%) and 30° of flexion (13%) ( P < .005) compared with ACL deficiency only. Conclusion: In this cadaveric model, the addition of an LMORT3 or LMORT4 lesion increased anterior laxity for both the anterior drawer and the pivot shift when compared with an isolated ACL tear. Lateral meniscal extrusion was also exacerbated by these LMORT lesions. Clinical Relevance: LMORT lesions, distinct from meniscus root tears, occur frequently in conjunction with ACL tears. This study characterized the biomechanical consequences of LMORT3 and LMORT4 lesions on joint stability and meniscal function, highlighting the importance of diagnosing and treating LMORT lesions at the time of ACL reconstruction.

Background: Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction is commonly performed to restore joint stability and prevent posterior tibial translation at higher flexion angles. However, persistent knee laxity after reconstruction is often reported. Purpose: To biomechanically evaluate the effect of independent suture tape (ST) reinforcement on different PCL reconstruction techniques. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: PCL reconstruction using porcine bones and quadrupled bovine tendons was performed using 2 techniques: (1) an all-inside method using suspensory adjustable loop devices (ALDs) in the tibia and femur and (2) a method using an interference screw on the tibial and an ALD on the femoral site. Both were tested with and without an additional ST for 4 groups (n = 8 per group). Each construct underwent biomechanical testing involving 3000 loading cycles in 3 stages. After position-controlled cycles simulating full range of motion, force-controlled loading from 10 to 250 N and then from 10 to 500 N were performed before pull-to-failure testing. Elongation, stiffness, and ultimate strength were evaluated. Results: The highest ultimate load (1505 ± 87 N), a small total elongation (2.60 ± 0.97 mm), and stiffness closest to the native human ligament (156.3 ± 16.1 compared with 198.9 ± 33.5 N/mm; P = .192) was seen in the all-inside technique using ST. Intragroup comparison revealed that reinforcement with ST produced a smaller total elongation for the screw fixation (Screw-ALD, 6.06 ± 3.60 vs Screw-ALD ST, 2.50 ± 1.28 mm; P = .018) and all-inside techniques (ALD-ALD, 4.77 ± 1.43 vs ALD-ALD ST, 2.60 ± 0.97 mm; P = .077), albeit the latter was not significantly different. Elongation for constructs without ST increased more rapidly at higher loads compared with elongation for ST constructs. The ultimate strength was significantly increased only for constructs using the all-inside technique using ST (ALD-ALD, 1167 ± 125 vs ALD-ALD ST, 1505 ± 87 N; P = .010). Conclusion: Adding an independent ST to PCL reconstruction led to improvement in the studied metrics by reducing the total elongation and increasing the ultimate strength, independent of the technique used. Clinical Relevance: PCL reconstruction using additional ST reinforcement was biomechanically favorable in this study. ST reinforcement in the clinical setting could decrease knee laxity after PCL reconstruction, providing better joint stability and improved functional outcomes.