首页> 外文期刊>Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy: official journal of the ESSKA >Mechanical comparison of meniscal repair devices with mattress suture devices in vitro.
【24h】

Mechanical comparison of meniscal repair devices with mattress suture devices in vitro.

机译:半月板修复装置与床垫缝合装置的体外机械比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

We report the load to failure in tensile testing of the MaxFire meniscal repair system (Biomet Inc, Warsaw, IN) and compare it to other current meniscal repair devices and mattress suture techniques. After creating a longitudinal tear in 42 one-year-old bovine menisci, 7 specimen groups defined by the meniscal repair device, suture, and/or mattress technique used for meniscal repair were randomly established: (Group 1: Fiberwire vertical mattress (VM), Group 2: Fiberwire horizontal mattress (HM), Group 3: FasT-Fix VM, Group 4: FasT-Fix HM, Group 5: RapidLoc, Group 6: MaxFire VM, Group 7: MaxFire HM). After completing the repairs, the meniscal specimens were cyclically pre-loaded before load to failure testing was performed. The mean load to failure for each group was: Fiberwire VM (185 +/- 41 N), Fiberwire HM (183 +/- 36 N), FasT-Fix VM (125 +/- 8 N), FasT-Fix HM (107 +/- 29 N), RapidLoc (70 +/- 12 N), MaxFire VM (145 +/- 44 N), MaxFire HM (139 +/- 50 N). An analysis of variance demonstrated a significant difference in the mean load to failure (F = 8.31 P < 0.01). Statistically significant differences were seen between both Fiberwire groups verses FasT-Fix HM and Rapid-Loc (P < 0.05). Three modes of failure were observed: suture breakage (17/42, 40.5%), tissue failure (18/42, 42.9%), and knot failure (7/42, 16.7%). 2-0 Fiberwire VM and HM repairs had the highest load to failure of all groups tested. The load to failure for the MaxFire meniscal repair system is comparable to other available all-inside meniscal repair systems.
机译:我们在MaxFire半月板修复系统(Biomet Inc,华沙,印第安纳州)的拉伸测试中报告了失败时的载荷,并将其与其他当前的半月板修复设备和床垫缝合技术进行了比较。在42岁的一岁牛半月板中产生纵向撕裂后,随机建立了由半月板修复设备,缝合线和/或用于半月板修复的床垫技术定义的7个样本组:(组1:Fiberwire垂直床垫(VM) ,组2:Fiberwire水平床垫(HM),组3:FasT-Fix VM,组4:FasT-Fix HM,组5:RapidLoc,组6:MaxFire VM,组7:MaxFire HM。完成维修后,对半月板标本进行周期性预加载,然后再进行破坏测试。每组的平均故障负载为:Fiberwire VM(185 +/- 41 N),Fiberwire HM(183 +/- 36 N),FasT-Fix VM(125 +/- 8 N),FasT-Fix HM( 107 +/- 29 N),RapidLoc(70 +/- 12 N),MaxFire VM(145 +/- 44 N),MaxFire HM(139 +/- 50 N)。方差分析表明,平均平均故障负荷有显着差异(F = 8.31 P <0.01)。两组光纤与FasT-Fix HM和Rapid-Loc相比在统计学上有显着差异(P <0.05)。观察到三种失败模式:缝合线断裂(17 / 42,40.5%),组织失败(18 / 42,42.9%)和结失败(7 / 42,16.7%)。在所有测试的组中,2-0 Fiberwire VM和HM维修的故障负荷最大。 MaxFire半月板修复系统的故障负载与其他可用的全内侧半月板修复系统相当。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号