Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2011 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6

Biomechanical assessment of suture techniques used for tendon repair

Tendon onarımlarında kullanılan dikiş tekniklerinin biyomekanik açıdan incelenmesi

Pages
453–457
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

All suture techniques applied had sufficient tensile strength to promote early mobilization.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to assess different tendon suture techniques from the perspectives of both tensile strength and early active mobilization.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: In this study, we implemented repairs on 40 flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) tendons, acquired from fresh frozen cadavers.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:All suture techniques applied had sufficient tensile strength to promote early mobilization.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess different tendon suture techniques from the perspectives of both tensile strength and early active mobilization. Methods: In this study, we implemented repairs on 40 flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) tendons, acquired from fresh frozen cadavers. The tendons were divided into 5 groups of 8 tendons each. We applied the 2-strand modified Kessler suture technique in the first group, the 4-strand Strickland suture technique in the second group, the 4-strand modified Kessler (without epitenon suture) suture technique in the third group, and the 4-strand modified Kessler (with epitenon sutures) suture technique in the fourth group. The remaining 8 intact tendons were set aside as the control group. The strength of the different tendon suture techniques were measured using the Instron® device. Results: The average tolerance strength of the first group was determined as 39.89±9.65 Newtons (N), the average tolerance strength of the second group was 39.64±9.14 N, the average tolerance strength of the third group was 50.29±11.24 N, the average tolerance strength of the fourth group was 54.47±6.83 N, and the average tolerance strength of the control group was 119±17.59 N. The tensile strength of the fourth group was significantly higher (p<0.05) than the first group, and the tensile strength of the third group was also significantly higher (p<0.05) than the first group. No significant difference was observed between the tensile strengths of the second and first groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: According to our findings, the tensile strength of 4-strand sutures, with or without epitenon sutures, are significantly higher than the tensile strength of 2-strand sutures. All suture techniques applied had sufficient tensile strength to promote early mobilization.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada farklı tendon dikiş tekniklerinin çekme dayanımı ve erken aktif hareket açısından uygunluğu değerlendirildi. Çalışma planı: Taze donmuş kadavra ellerinden elde edilen 40 fleksör digitorum profundus (FDP) tendonuna onarım uygulandı. Tendonlar 8'erlikten 5 gruba ayrıldı. Birinci gruba, proksi-malden kilitli 2 kollu modifiye Kessler, ikinci gruba 4 kollu Strickland, üçüncü gruba 4 kollu mo-difıye Kessler (epitenon dikişsiz), dördüncü gruba da ise 4 kollu modifiye Kessler (epitenon kişli) dikiş teknikleri uygulandı. Geri kalan 8 adet tendon ise kontrol grubunu oluşturdu. Farklı tendon dikiş tekniklerinin gücü Instron® cihazı ile ölçüldü. Bulgular: Birinci gnıbun ortalama dayanma gücü 39.89±9.65 Newton (N), ikinci grubun ortalama dayanma gücü 39.64±9.14 N, üçüncü grubun ortalama dayanma gücü 50.29± 11.24 N, dördüncü grubun ortalama dayanma gücü 54.47±6.83 N, kontrol grubunun ortalama dayanma gücü ise 119±I7.59 N olarak saptandı. Bu sonuçlara göre dördüncü grubun çekme dayanımı birinci gruba göre ve üçüncü grubun çekme dayanımı birinci gruba göre anlamlı şekilde yüksek bulundu (p 0.05). Çıkarımlar: Bulgularımıza göre epitenon dikişli olsun veya olmasın 4 kollu dikişlerin çekme dayanımı 2 kollu dikişlerin çekme dayanımına göre istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı olarak daha yüksektir. Uyguladığımız tüm dikiş teknikleri erken hareket verebilmek için yeterli güce sahiptiler.

🔖

Cite This Article

YALÇIN, L., DEMİRCİ, M. S., ALP, M., AKKIN, S. M., ŞENER, B., KOEBKE, J. (2011). Biomechanical assessment of suture techniques used for tendon repair. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6, 453–457. https://ajindex.com/articles/353747

References (15)

  1. Bunnell S. Repair of tendons in the fingers. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1922;35:88-97
  2. Kleinert HE, Kutz JE, Atasoy E, Stormo A. Primary repair of flexor tendons. Orthop Clin North Am 1973;4:865-76
  3. Gelberman RH, Manske PR, Akeson WH, Woo SLY, Lundborg G, Amiel D. Flexor tendon repair. J Orthop Res 1986;4:119-28
  4. Hitchcock TF, Light TR, Bunch WH, Knight GW, Sartori MJ, Patwardhan AG, et al. The effect of immediate constrained digital motion on the strength of flexor tendon repairs in chickens. J Hand Surg Am 1987;12:590-5
  5. Baktir A, Türk CY, Kabak S, Sahin V, Kardas Y. Flexor tendon repair in zone 2 followed by early active mobilization. J Hand Surg Br 1996;21:624-8
  6. Kayal› C, Eren A, A¤ufl H, Arslantafl M, Özçalabı İT. The results of primary repair and early passive rehabilitation in zone II flexor tendon injuries in children. [Article in Turkish] Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2003;37:249-53
  7. Silfverskiöld KL, May EJ. Flexor tendon repair in zone II with a new suture technique and early mobilization program combining passive and active flexion. J Hand Surg Am 1994;19:53-60
  8. Strickland JW, Glogovac SV. Digital function following flexor tendon repair in Zone II: a comparison of immobilization and controlled passive motion techniques. J Hand Surg Am 1980;6:537-43
  9. Barrie KA, Wolfe SW, Shean C, Shenbagamurthi D, Slade JF 3rd, Panjabi MM. A biomechanical comparison of multistrand flexor tendon repairs using an in situ testing model. J Hand Surg Am 2000;25:499-506
  10. Osada D, Fujita S, Tamai K, Yamaguchi T, Iwamoto A, Saotome K. Flexor tendon repair in zone II with 6-strand techniques and early active mobilization. J Hand Surg Am 2006;31:987-92
  11. Winters SC, Gelberman RH, Woo SL, Chan SS, Grewal R, Seiler JG 3rd. The effects of multiple-strand suture methods on the strength and excursion of repaired intrasynovial flexor tendons: a biomechanical study in dogs. J Hand Surg Am 1998;23:97-104
  12. Thurman RT, Trumble TE, Hanel DP, Tencer AF, Kiser PK. Two-, four-, and six-strand zone II flexor tendon repairs: an in situ biomechanical comparison using a cadaver model. J Hand Surg Am 1998;23:261-5
  13. Savage R. In vitro studies of a new method of flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Br 1985;10:135-41
  14. Wagner WF Jr, Carroll C 4th, Strickland JW, Heck DA, Toombs JP. A biomechanical comparison of techniques of flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am 1994;19:979-83
  15. Schuind F, Garcia-Elias M, Cooney WP 3rd, An KN. Flexor tendon forces: in vivo me