Assessment of Surrogate Models for Research on Resistance and Deformation of Repairs of the Human Meniscal Roots: Porcine or Older Human Models?
Rattachement africain : es. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Meniscal root repair is not routinely recommended for patients over 75 years old, yet surrogate age-unrestricted human or porcine models are used for its evaluation. This study assesses the suitability of older human or porcine meniscus models for in vitro testing of the sutured meniscal horn. Three groups of menisci underwent a load-to-failure test with continuous monitoring of the traction force and deformation around the suture: human < 75 years, human ≥ 75 years, and porcine. Both surrogate models were compared to the younger group. The porcine group exhibited a 172.1%-higher traction force before tearing (p < 0.001) and a 174.1%-higher ultimate force (p < 0.001), without there being differences between the human groups. At tissue level, the older group had a 28.7%-lower cut-out stress (p = 0.012) and the porcine group had a 57.2%-higher stress (p < 0.001). Regarding elasticity at the sutured area, a 48.1%-greater deformation rate was observed in the older group (p < 0.001), without difference for the porcine group. In conclusion, neither the porcine nor the older human model demonstrated a clear advantage as a surrogate model for young human sutured meniscal horns. The older human meniscus is preferable for resistance at the specimen level, while the porcine model better represents deformation in the sutured zone.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Assessment of Surrogate Models for Research on Resistance and Deformation of Repairs of the Human Meniscal Roots: Porcine or Older Human Models?
- Date Crossref
- 12/01/2024
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.