ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
A novel meniscal root refixation pull-in technique with an all-suture anchor shows biomechanical properties comparable to standard suture anchor and transtibial pull-out techniques.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of a cartilage-preserving pinhole transtibial technique versus standard pull-out repair for traumatic posterior meniscal root tears.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Comparison of Knotless Suture Anchor Fixation Versus Transosseous Suture Button Fixation for Posterior Medial Meniscal Root Tears.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- A novel meniscal root refixation pull-in technique with an all-suture anchor shows biomechanical properties comparable to standard suture anchor and transtibial pull-out techniques.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Repair techniques for posterior meniscal root (PMMR) tears include repair with transtibial pull-out and anchors. An alternative approach uses all-suture anchors pulled in, avoiding a posterior medial portal. While clinical feasibility has been assessed, biomechanical properties of this technique remain unknown. We hypothesised that the biomechanical properties using the pull-in technique would be comparable to those achieved with conventional repair techniques. Methods: Fifty fresh-frozen porcine tibiae were fixed in a steel pot. Whereas in group (1) the native meniscal root was kept intact (native meniscal root (NM)), the PMMR was sectioned and refixed in groups (2)-(5): (2) Double-loaded suture anchor (screw anchor) (SA), (3) transtibial pull-out repair with two sutures (TTPO), (4) double-loaded pull-in repair with all-suture anchor that was pulled into the subcortical bone which was predrilled from retrograde direction (PULL) and (5) double-loaded push-in repair with all-suture anchor traditionally pushed into the predrilled subcortical bone in antegrade direction (PUSH). Testing was performed using a universal testing machine with 1000 cycles (5-20 N/0.5 Hz) with subsequent load-to-failure (LTF) meaning failure of the NM or refixation. Outcomes measured included LTF (N), cyclic displacement (mm), and stiffness (N/mm). The failure mode was documented macroscopically. Study design: Controlled laboratory study. Results: No repair technique restored the stability of the NM, reaching 1064.6 ± 226.0 N in LTF ( Conclusion: Current repair techniques for posterior medial root tears do not fully restore the biomechanical properties of an intact root. The new pull-in technique with an all-suture anchor which is pulled in instead of pushed in shows biomechanical properties comparable to conventional methods, especially regarding LTF. Level of Evidence: There is no level of evidence as this study was an experimental 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.