ArticleBone & joint research2025
Tendon-suture complex shows better repair outcomes in the reconstruction of the medial meniscus posterior root : a biomechanical study.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to biomechanically compare three medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) repair techniques to support their clinical application. Methods: A total of 18 porcine knee joints and 12 bovine extensor tendons were allocated into three groups: transtibial pullout repair (TPR), tendon reconstruction (TR), and tendon-suture complex (TSC). Each sample underwent cyclic loading (1 to 30 N, 1,000 cycles), followed by failure testing. Displacement, elongation, stiffness, ultimate load, and failure modes were assessed. Results: Significant mean differences were detected between the TPR and TSC after 100 cycles (2.27 mm (SD 0.26) vs 1.89 mm (SD 0.20), p = 0.012), and also between the TSC and TPR or TR after 500 and 1,000 cycles (500 cycles: 2.08 mm (SD 0.22) vs 2.62 mm (SD 0.27) and 2.50 mm (SD 0.13), p = 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively; 1,000 cycles: 2.22 mm (SD 0.21) vs 2.86 mm (SD 0.31) and 2.71 mm (SD 0.20), p = 0.001 and p = 0.011, respectively), while no significant difference was detected between the TPR and TR. The ultimate failure load in the TSC was greater than that in the TR (277.43 N (SD 75.57) vs 176.88 N (SD 36.80), p = 0.038) and did not differ from that in the TPR. TR and TSC presented a lower elongation than that noted in the TPR (14.09 mm (SD 4.32) and 13.88 mm (SD 4.59) vs 26.89 mm (SD 7.27), both p = 0.003), with no difference noted between TR and TSC. Stiffness was greater with the TSC than with TPR (23.82 N/mm (SD 6.94) vs 14.34 N/mm (SD 2.39), p = 0.028) and did not differ between TPR and TR or between TR and TSC. Failure modes varied: TPR failure by suture pull-through, and TR and TSC failure by tendon pull-through. Conclusion: TR and TSC outperformed TPR, with TSC resulting in better displacement, elongation, and stiffness, and a higher ultimate failure load than TR. These findings suggest that suture augmentation enhances repair strength. TSC shows favourable biomechanics, but further clinical validation and rehabilitation optimization are needed for better long-term outcomes.
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.