{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02384020618556701, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005798969072164949, 'mean_word_length': 5.470833333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Biomechanical Comparison of the FasT-Fix Meniscal Repair Suture System with Vertical Mattress Sutures and Meniscus Arrows

Background A meniscal repair technique that combines the strength of vertical mattress sutures and the decreased tissue morbidity of an all-inside technique would be advantageous. Hypothesis The FasT-Fix Meniscal Repair Suture System will provide load at failure, stiffness, and displacement equivalent to that of vertical mattress sutures and superior to that of Meniscus Arrows. Study Design In vitro biomechanical study. Methods After repair of a 2-cm vertical longitudinal medial meniscal lesion, three groups of six human cadaveric knees were biomechanically tested in a random order on a servohydraulic device, and three groups of five specimens underwent cyclic loading. Results Specimens repaired with Meniscus Arrows had reduced load at failure, stiffness, and displacement, but there were no differences between the FasT-Fix and vertical mattress suture methods. During cyclic loading, specimens repaired with two Meniscus Arrows failed before test completion, whereas specimens repaired with two vertical mattress sutures (6.0 ± 3.7 mm) or with two FasT-Fix implants (5.1 ± 1.4 mm) maintained fixation with comparable displacements. Conclusions The FasT-Fix provided load at failure, stiffness, and displacement comparable with that of vertical mattress sutures. Clinical Relevance The results suggest that the FasT-Fix may be preferable to Meniscus Arrows for meniscal repair with minimal associated tissue morbidity.