ArticleSICOT-J2024
Biomechanical comparison of the tensile strength of fixation implants used for pull-out repair of medial meniscus posterior root tear.
Article in SICOT-J, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined Transtibial Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Pullout Repair and Medial Open Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Distribution analysis of structural properties of native porcine humerus-rotator cuff-scapular complex using universal testing machine.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMedial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRT) pull-out repair aims to restore the meniscus' anatomical structure. Different implants are utilized for thread fixation in the pull-out repair technique for MMPRT. However, biomechanical evidence comparing the fixation strengths of these implants remains unavailable. This study investigated the tensile strength of three fixation implants in porcine knee models of MMPRT pull-out repair.
methodsThis study categorized 30 porcine MMPRT models undergoing pull-out repair into three groups (10 specimens each) based on the implant utilized for fixation, including double spike plate, metallic interference screw (IFS), and resorbable IFS fixed group. A tensile tester was used to track the suture wire threaded to the medial meniscus anterior root. The displacement length was recorded after 10 and 20 loading cycles (10-30 N, 100 mm/min cross-head speed). Each specimen was then stretched to failure (50 mm/min cross-head speed), failure modes were recorded, and structural properties (maximum load, linear stiffness, elongation at failure, and elongation at yield) were compared. Fisher's exact test and one-way analysis of variance were utilized to assess the differences.
resultsNo significant differences in displacement length, upper yield load, maximum load, linear stiffness, elongation at yield, elongation at failure, and frequency of failure mode were observed between the three groups.
conclusionAll implants were comparable in terms of fixation strength. Thus, resorbable interference screws may be particularly useful in this technique and does not require implant removal surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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.