PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 17, 2026Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine1 citationsOpen Access

Biomechanical Comparison of Knotless Suture Anchor Fixation Versus Transosseous Suture Button Fixation for Posterior Medial Meniscal Root Tears

View Full Paper
KCKyle G. CoxAmerican Sports Medicine InstituteJWJohn M. WeldyAmerican Sports Medicine InstituteDBDavid P. BeasonAmerican Sports Medicine Institute

Key Points

  • To evaluate the biomechanical performance of knotless all-suture anchor repair versus transosseous suture button fixation for PMMR tears.
  • Controlled laboratory study on ten matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric knees.
  • Knees were biomechanically tested in intact, torn, and repaired conditions with two fixation techniques: knotless anchor and transosseous button.
  • Comparative analysis of contact area and pressure at various degrees of knee flexion.
  • At 90° flexion, control group showed significantly higher normalized contact pressure (P = .007) than the anchor group.
  • Normalized contact area was significantly lower in the control group (P = .0001) at 90° compared to the anchor group.
  • Knotless anchor repair performed better or similarly to transosseous fixation at 0°, 30°, and 60° flexion.

Abstract

Background: Posterior medial meniscal root (PMMR) tears have been shown to create a biomechanically unfavorable environment for knee cartilage. While various PMMR repair methods have been shown to restore normal knee biomechanics, there is little consensus on the ideal repair technique. Purpose: To compare PMMR repair using a knotless all-suture anchor versus traditional transosseous fixation using a suture button. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Ten matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were biomechanically tested in intact, torn, and surgically repaired conditions. One limb from each donor was repaired using a traditional suture and bone tunnel technique (control group), while the contralateral limb was repaired with a knotless all-suture anchor (anchor group). The limbs were distributed equally between the 2 surgical procedure groups, so that each group contained a nearly equal number of right and left knees. Results: There were no significant differences in normalized contact area or normalized contact pressure between control and anchor groups at 0°, 30°, or 60° of knee flexion. Contact pressure returned to near-intact values at 0°, 30°, and 60° for both groups. This was also the case at 90° for the anchor group. However, the control group did not return to intact values at 90°, resulting in a significantly ( P = .007) higher normalized contact pressure in the control group compared with the anchor group. This finding was also true at 90° for normalized contact area, which was significantly lower ( P = .0001) in the control group than in the anchor group. Conclusion: At time zero, knotless all-suture repair of PMMR tears performed biomechanically similarly or better than transosseous suture button fixation at 0°, 30°, and 60° of flexion, with significantly improved contact area and contact pressure at 90° of flexion. Thus, knotless all-suture anchor repair may represent a viable alternative technique for PMMR repair. Clinical Relevance: The knowledge that knotless all-suture anchor repair performed as well as or better than a more traditional technique allows for a technically simpler surgery, which precludes the need for drilling through the tibia.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Cox et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a095b787880e6d24efe13aehttps://doi.org/10.1177/23259671261443326
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper