Meniscal repair with the MaxFire device: a cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE: To use a cadaver model to evaluate an all-inside meniscal repair device (MaxFire). METHODS: Six fresh-frozen cadaveric knees (ages 30-84 years) without evidence of prior surgery were used for this study. The knees were rigidly mounted and arthroscopy performed using standard anteromedial and anterolateral portals. Four MaxFire devices were placed into the medial and lateral meniscus according to the technique provided by the manufacturer. The devices were placed in a vertical or horizontal mattress fashion systematically from posterior to anterior. Implants were placed from either the ipsilateral- or contralateral-portal at the discretion of each surgeon. Placement into the medial meniscus was performed with the knee in approximately 10° of flexion and into the lateral meniscus in 45° of flexion. RESULTS: In all, 54 MaxFire devices were placed. Twenty-six devices were used medially, and 28 laterally. Forty-five (83%) were placed successfully. Of those, 3 (7%) were placed in a "top hat" fashion. The nine failures (17%) were related to final device tensioning. Three of the sutures broke, one suture would not reduce, and three implants pulled out of the meniscus. The devices were successfully removed arthroscopically with a grasper or oscillating shaver. Pulling of implants out of menisci occurred in degenerative knees with degenerative meniscal tissue and did not occur with healthy appearing menisci. CONCLUSION: The MaxFire device is easy to use, has a low risk of complications, and can be inserted expeditiously by arthroscopy.

Mechanical comparison of meniscal repair devices with mattress suture devices in vitro.

We report the load to failure in tensile testing of the MaxFire™ meniscal repair system (Biomet Inc, Warsaw, IN) and compare it to other current meniscal repair devices and mattress suture techniques. After creating a longitudinal tear in 42 one-year-old bovine menisci, 7 specimen groups defined by the meniscal repair device, suture, and/or mattress technique used for meniscal repair were randomly established: (Group 1: Fiberwire™ vertical mattress (VM), Group 2: Fiberwire™ horizontal mattress (HM), Group 3: FasT-Fix™ VM, Group 4: FasT-Fix™ HM, Group 5: RapidLoc™, Group 6: MaxFire™ VM, Group 7: MaxFire™ HM). After completing the repairs, the meniscal specimens were cyclically pre-loaded before load to failure testing was performed. The mean load to failure for each group was: Fiberwire VM (185 ± 41 N), Fiberwire HM (183 ± 36 N), FasT-Fix VM (125 ± 8 N), FasT-Fix HM (107 ± 29 N), RapidLoc (70 ± 12 N), MaxFire VM (145 ± 44 N), MaxFire HM (139 ± 50 N). An analysis of variance demonstrated a significant difference in the mean load to failure (F = 8.31 P < 0.01). Statistically significant differences were seen between both Fiberwire groups verses FasT-Fix HM and Rapid-Loc (P < 0.05). Three modes of failure were observed: suture breakage (17/42, 40.5%), tissue failure (18/42, 42.9%), and knot failure (7/42, 16.7%). 2-0 Fiberwire™ VM and HM repairs had the highest load to failure of all groups tested. The load to failure for the MaxFire™ meniscal repair system is comparable to other available all-inside meniscal repair systems.