Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research ›› 2021, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (36): 5777-5781.doi: 10.12307/2021.341

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Biomechanical properties of the OmniSpan device versus the RapidLoc device for meniscus repair

Zhang Qiang, Yue Xianhu, Zhang Shu, Gu Mingyong, Li Rui   

  1. Department of Orthopedics, The 960th Hospital of the PLA Joint Logistice Support Force, Jinan 250031, Shandong Province, China
  • Received:2021-02-04 Revised:2021-02-20 Accepted:2021-03-16 Online:2021-12-28 Published:2021-09-17
  • Contact: Li Rui, Master, Associate chief physician, Department of Orthopedics, The 960th Hospital of the PLA Joint Logistice Support Force, Jinan 250031, Shandong Province, China
  • About author:Zhang Qiang, MD, Associate chief physician, Department of Orthopedics, The 960th Hospital of the PLA Joint Logistice Support Force, Jinan 250031, Shandong Province, China
  • Supported by:
    the General Project of President’s Fund of The 960th Hospital of the PLA Joint Logistice Support Force, No. 2017MS08 (to ZQ)

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Meniscus tears are commonly encountered in clinical practice. Many meniscus repair devices have been designed and compared in biomechanical experiment and clinical practice, but to our knowledge, the OmniSpan device has not been compared with the RapidLoc device in biomechanical configurations.  
OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical characteristics of the OmniSpan device with the RapidLoc device in meniscus repair.
METHODS:  Twenty fresh porcine menisci were randomly assigned to the RapidLoc device group (n=10) and the OmniSpan device group (n= 10). Longitudinal vertical tear was created in the menisci and was subjected to repair according to its grouping. RapidLoc device adopted single point suture according to the operation guideline with a total of two stitches. OmniSpan device adopted cross suture with a total of two stitches. Once repaired, the specimen was subjected to cyclic loading with the tensile force between 5 N and 20 N at a rate of 30 mm/min for 500 cycles. Displacement was recorded at a load of 5 N. Loading to failure was performed at a rate of 30 mm/min, and maximum failure load and stiffness were recorded and evaluated after the experiment.  
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) In cyclic loading experiment, the average displacement was (1.47±0.09) mm and (1.63±0.08) mm for the OmniSpan and RapidLoc devices at a load of 5 N after cycles of 500, respectively. This difference was significant (P=0.000 8). (2) The OmniSpan device repairs exhibited higher maximum failure load compared with the RapidLoc device repairs [(257±52) N vs. (210±35) N, P=0.029 5]. There was no significant difference between two groups with respect to stiffness (P=0.339 0). (3) The results of this study indicate that when addressing a longitudinal meniscus tear, the OmniSpan device shows better biomechanical properties than the RapidLoc device. Surgeons may use the OmniSpan instead of the RapidLoc as all-inside meniscus repair devices for their patients.

Key words: meniscus, tear, repair, RapidLoc device, OmniSpan device, biomechanics, cyclic loading, loading to failure

CLC Number: