ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Enhancing meniscal repair with tough adhesive puncture sealing (TAPS) suture: A proof-of-concept study on bovine cadaveric knees.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing meniscal repair with tough adhesive puncture sealing (TAPS) suture: A proof-of-concept study on bovine cadaveric knees.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective was to use cyclic tensile loading to compare the gap formation at suture site of three different suture materials to repair bovine radial meniscal tears: (1) polyglactin sutures, (2) tough adhesive puncture sealing (TAPS) sutures and (3) ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) sutures. Methods: Twelve ex vivo bovine knees were dissected to retrieve the menisci. Complete radial tears were performed on 24 menisci, which were then separated into three groups and repaired using either pristine 2-0 polyglactin sutures, TAPS sutures (2-0 polyglactin sutures coated with adhesive chitosan/alginate hydrogels) or 2-0 UHMWPE sutures with a single stitch. The repaired menisci were clamped onto an Instron machine and underwent cyclic loading between 5 and 25 N at a frequency of 0.16 Hz. Gap formation between the edges of the tear was measured after 500 cycles using an electronic caliper, when the meniscus was still on the Instron without any load applied. Results: Mean gap formation was 5.22 mm (±1.70) for the 2-0 polyglactin sutures, 2.48 mm (±0.25) for the TAPS sutures, and 4.85 mm (±1.55) for the 2-0 UHMWPE sutures. The gap was significantly smaller in the TAPS sutures group compared to the two others because of better force dispersion, decreasing tissue damage by suture indentation and potentially leading to better meniscal healing. Conclusions: From a biomechanical standpoint, coated sutures held the edges of radial meniscal tears closer together compared to conventional sutures. This technology has the potential to reduce tissue damage and improve the success rate of meniscal repairs. Level of Evidence: controlled laboratory study.
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.