• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.109-114
• /
• 1999

Purpose : The importance of meniscal repair is well recognized. But transeciton of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus at the posterior tibial attachment is rarely documented and known irreparable. We experienced 9 cases of transection, and present clinical features and pull out suture technique. Methods and Materials : There were 9cases of transection of the posterior horn of medial meniscus from September 1998 to July 1999 in our hospital. Age was 59.3 years in average and ranged from 38 to 70years. Clinical features and MRI made diagnosis in all cases. We confirmed the diagnosis with arthroscopy and repaired the transection with pullout suture technique. Clinical features : Transection of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus at the posterior tibia attachment occurred frequently in middle aged people. They complained posterior knee pain, but they have no history of definitive trauma. Characteristically they had difficulty in full flexion of the knee and in having a squatting position. MRI is very important in diagnosis of transection, especially in coronal view, there is separation of the posterior horn of the meniscus from the posterior tibial attachment. Surgical technique : Pullout suture technique includes debridement of fibrous or scar tissue, exposure of the subchondral bone of the posterior tibial attachment site, suture the transected end of the meniscus with PDS suture, bone tunnel formation from the anteromedial aspect of the proximal tibia, insertion of wire loop through the tibia tunnel, pull the PDS suture through the tibia tunnel out of the joint and stabilize the PDS with post-tie technique to the proximal tibia. Conclusion : Transection of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus at the posterior tibial attachment is not common clinically and rarely documented. Clinical features and MRI are very important in diagnosis of this type tear. Arthroscopic pullout sutures is useful for treatment of this type tear of the meniscus.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.8-15
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The object of this study was to investigate the difference in torque and pullout strength between the standard anchor insertion (5.0 mm) with a small awl (3.7 mm) and larger anchor insertion (6.5 mm), with a standard awl (5.0 mm) in osteoporotic humeral head. Materials and Methods: The embalmed 24 paired cadaveric shoulders were assigned to either Group A or B. After measuring the bone mineral density (BMD) of the ROI (region of interest) in the humeral head, 5.0 mm suture anchors were inserted using a 3.7 mm awl in Group A1, and the same 5.0 mm anchors were inserted using a 5.0 mm awl in Group A2. The 5.0 mm anchors were inserted using a 5.0 mm awl in Group B1, and 6.5 mm anchors were inserted using a 5.0 mm awl in Group B2. We measured the torques at the time of the anchor insertion and pullout strengths. Results: There was no significant difference in the BMD between the groups. The torque of A1 (20.6 $cN{\cdot}m$) was significantly higher than that of A2 (13.2 $cN{\cdot}m$), and the torque of B2 (20.8 $cN{\cdot}m$) was significantly higher than that of B1(12.1 $cN{\cdot}m$). However, the difference in the increased torque between group A and B was not significant. The pullout strength of A1 (204.2 N) was significantly higher than that of A2 (152.9 N), and the pullout strength of B2 (210.9 N) was significantly higher than that of B1 (149.5 N). However, the difference in the increased pullout strength between Group A and B was not significant. Conclusion: In severe osteoporosis, the use of a larger suture anchor with a standard awl increased the torque and pullout strength significantly, in comparison to the use of the same sized suture anchor and awl. If there is an inadequate interval between the anchors on the greater tuberosity, the use of a 3.7 mm awl and 5.0 mm anchor will be beneficial compared to that of a 5.0 mm awl and 6.5 mm anchor, considering that an increase in the pullout strength does not depend on the awl size.

• 대한관절경학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.113-114
• /
• 2006