journal article Apr 26, 2025

Transtibial Centralization Better Restores Meniscal Extrusion and Contact Mechanics Compared With Knotless Anchor Centralization for Medial Meniscal Posterior Root Tears: An In Vitro Biomechanical Study Using a Porcine Model

Arthroscopy Vol. 41 No. 11 pp. 4615 · Wiley
View at Publisher Save 10.1016/j.arthro.2025.04.041
Abstract
Purpose
To investigate the tibiofemoral contact mechanics and extent of medial meniscal extrusion (MME) between an isolated anatomic transtibial pull‐through root repair (ATPR) and an ATPR combined with either transtibial or knotless anchor centralization in a porcine medial meniscal posterior root tear (MMPRT) model.


Methods
Porcine knee joints (N = 12) were used to test 5 meniscal conditions: (1) intact, (2) MMPRT, (3) ATPR, (4) ATPR with transtibial centralization (TTC), and (5) ATPR with 2 knotless anchor–based centralization (2AC). Contact area and peak contact pressure on the medial meniscus, as well as extrusion, were evaluated at 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion under a 200‐N compressive force.


Results

MME was significantly less after ATPR‐TTC than after ATPR or ATPR‐2AC at 60° (2.68 mm vs 4.39 mm vs 4.09 mm,
P
< .001) and 90° (2.99 mm vs 4.75 mm vs 4.36 mm,
P
< .001). Contact area was significantly greater with ATPR‐TTC than with ATPR‐2AC at 60° (693.31 mm
2
vs 603.13 mm
2
,
P
= .011) and ATPR at 60° (693.31 mm
2
vs 601.01 mm
2
,
P
= .008) and 90° (619.68 mm
2
vs 563.97 mm
2
,
P
= .037). ATPR‐TTC significantly reduced peak contact pressure compared with ATPR at 45° (4.97 MPa vs 5.60 MPa,
P
= .015) and 60° (5.20 MPa vs 5.99 MPa,
P
= .026), with similar values to those of ATPR‐2AC across all angles.



Conclusions
In a cadaveric porcine model evaluating time‐zero biomechanics, an anatomic transtibial pull‐through repair with TTC using 2 suture tapes reduced extrusion and improved contact mechanics when compared with an isolated repair or a repair combined with centralization using 2 knotless anchors.


Clinical Relevance
When there are concerns of MME after a MMPRT repair, the addition of a TTC suture may provide better biomechanical properties than an isolated repair or a repair combined with centralization using 2 knotless anchors.
Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References
46
[6]
Clinical outcomes following transtibial medial meniscal root repair are maintained at long‐term follow‐up

Michael Moore, Sarah Levitt, Charles C. Lin et al.

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10.1002/ksa.12321
[10]
Diagnosis and Treatment Strategies of Meniscus Root Tears: A Scoping Review

Jose Rafael Garcia, Salvador Gonzalez Ayala, Felicitas Allende et al.

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 10.1177/23259671241283962
[28]
Biomechanical Consequences of a Nonanatomic Posterior Medial Meniscal Root Repair

Christopher M. LaPrade, Abdullah Foad, Sean D. Smith et al.

The American Journal of Sports Medicine 10.1177/0363546514566191
[30]
Liggins A.B. (1992)
[44]
Luo Z.P. "Validation of F‐scan pressure sensor system: A technical note" J Rehabil Res Dev (1998)
Metrics
3
Citations
46
References
Details
Published
Apr 26, 2025
Vol/Issue
41(11)
Pages
4615
License
View
Funding
Orthopaedic Research UK
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
Cite This Article
Khalis Boksh, Daniel M. Espino, Arijit Ghosh, et al. (2025). Transtibial Centralization Better Restores Meniscal Extrusion and Contact Mechanics Compared With Knotless Anchor Centralization for Medial Meniscal Posterior Root Tears: An In Vitro Biomechanical Study Using a Porcine Model. Arthroscopy, 41(11), 4615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2025.04.041
Related

You May Also Like

Cartilage injuries: A review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies

Walton W. Curl, Jonathan Krome · 1997

1,147 citations

Scoring of patellofemoral disorders

Urho M. Kujala, Laura H. Jaakkola · 1993

1,111 citations