ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
Superior load-to-failure in an all-suture anchor system for all-inside meniscal repair compared to a PEEK-cage anchor system in an experimental cadaveric test setting.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- All-inside meniscal repair using polyether ether ketone versus all-suture anchors: No difference in failure rates at three-follow-up in a retrospective cohort of 2253 patients.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- All-Suture, All-Inside Meniscus Repair Is Safe and Provides Favorable Short-Term Clinical Outcomes.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Is the meniscus posterior root the "Death Zone" of the knee joint?Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Superior load-to-failure in an all-suture anchor system for all-inside meniscal repair compared to a PEEK-cage anchor system in an experimental cadaveric test setting.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a latest generation all-suture anchor repair device (ASARD) for meniscal repair with that of a latest generation PEEK-cage anchor repair device (PCARD) in an experimental setting using cadaveric menisci. Methods: Twenty-six menisci were obtained from the knees of fresh body donors. Artificially created meniscal lesions were treated randomly, using a single stitch with either an ASARD or a PCARD. Cyclic biomechanical testing, utilising a universal material testing machine and following an established protocol, was carried out and load-to-failure (LTF), displacement, stiffness, and mode-of-failure (MOF) reported. Results: Mean LTF was found to be 61% higher in the ASARD group at 107.10 N (standard deviation [SD], 42.34), compared to 65.86 N (SD, 27.42) in the PCARD group with statistical significance ( Conclusions: This study demonstrates that an ASARD shows a higher mean LTF than a PCARD when compared in an experimental biomechanical setting. Level of evidence: Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.