Does Barbed Suture Repair Negate the Benefit of Peripheral Repair in Porcine Flexor Tendon?

The Hand Pub Date : 2016-12-01 Epub Date: 2016-03-09 DOI:10.1177/1558944715628000
Alan Sull, Serkan Inceoglu, Montri D Wongworawat
{"title":"Does Barbed Suture Repair Negate the Benefit of Peripheral Repair in Porcine Flexor Tendon?","authors":"Alan Sull, Serkan Inceoglu, Montri D Wongworawat","doi":"10.1177/1558944715628000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Advances in suture material and geometry have fueled interest in barbed suture tenorrhaphy. Theoretically, barbed suture allows better load distribution, smoother gliding under pulleys, and improved tendon blood flow. Minimal data exist on whether barbed tendon repair may benefit from supplementation by a peripheral stitch. The purpose of this study is to determine whether peripheral suture repair increases gap resistance in both conventional and barbed core repairs, increases maximum tensile strength, and fails before or after the core repair. <b>Methods:</b> Porcine flexor tendons were harvested and assigned randomly into 4 groups of 10 of varying suture constructs (3-0 PDS™ or 3-0 V-Loc 180™ core with or without peripheral 5-0 Vicryl™ repair). Core repairs were performed using a modified 4-strand cruciate repair. A servohydrolic tester was used for biomechanical testing of linear 2-mm gap resistance and maximum tensile strength. <b>Results:</b> Peripheral repair improved 2-mm gap resistance in all repairs, regardless of core suture type, conventional (173% increase) or barbed (204% increase). No change in the maximum tensile strength was found in either core suture type with peripheral repair. Peripheral repairs always failed before core repairs, at a significantly higher load of 74.2 ± 20.4 N in barbed versus 57.8 ± 12.2 N (<i>P</i> = .04) in conventional core repairs. <b>Conclusions:</b> The addition of peripheral repair improved gap resistance but not ultimate tensile strength in both conventional and barbed flexor tendon repairs in linear testing. The 4-strand cruciate flexor tendon repairs using barbed suture may require peripheral repair to withstand physiologic loads, as core repair alone using barbed suture was insufficient.</p>","PeriodicalId":76630,"journal":{"name":"The Hand","volume":"11 1","pages":"479-483"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5256651/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Hand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944715628000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/3/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advances in suture material and geometry have fueled interest in barbed suture tenorrhaphy. Theoretically, barbed suture allows better load distribution, smoother gliding under pulleys, and improved tendon blood flow. Minimal data exist on whether barbed tendon repair may benefit from supplementation by a peripheral stitch. The purpose of this study is to determine whether peripheral suture repair increases gap resistance in both conventional and barbed core repairs, increases maximum tensile strength, and fails before or after the core repair. Methods: Porcine flexor tendons were harvested and assigned randomly into 4 groups of 10 of varying suture constructs (3-0 PDS™ or 3-0 V-Loc 180™ core with or without peripheral 5-0 Vicryl™ repair). Core repairs were performed using a modified 4-strand cruciate repair. A servohydrolic tester was used for biomechanical testing of linear 2-mm gap resistance and maximum tensile strength. Results: Peripheral repair improved 2-mm gap resistance in all repairs, regardless of core suture type, conventional (173% increase) or barbed (204% increase). No change in the maximum tensile strength was found in either core suture type with peripheral repair. Peripheral repairs always failed before core repairs, at a significantly higher load of 74.2 ± 20.4 N in barbed versus 57.8 ± 12.2 N (P = .04) in conventional core repairs. Conclusions: The addition of peripheral repair improved gap resistance but not ultimate tensile strength in both conventional and barbed flexor tendon repairs in linear testing. The 4-strand cruciate flexor tendon repairs using barbed suture may require peripheral repair to withstand physiologic loads, as core repair alone using barbed suture was insufficient.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
带刺缝合修复是否会抵消猪屈肌腱外周修复的益处?
背景:缝合材料和几何形状的进步激发了人们对带刺缝合腱鞘成形术的兴趣。从理论上讲,倒钩缝合能更好地分配负荷,在滑轮下更顺畅地滑行,并改善肌腱血流。关于有倒刺肌腱修复术是否能从外周缝合线的补充中获益的数据极少。本研究的目的是确定外围缝合修复是否能增加传统核心修复和带刺核心修复的间隙阻力、增加最大拉伸强度以及在核心修复之前或之后失效。方法:采集猪屈肌腱,随机分为 4 组,每组 10 根,每组采用不同的缝合结构(3-0 PDS™ 或 3-0 V-Loc 180™ 核心,带或不带外围 5-0 Vicryl™ 修复)。核心修复采用改良的 4 股十字韧带修复法。使用伺服液压测试仪对 2 毫米线性间隙阻力和最大拉伸强度进行生物力学测试。结果:无论核心缝合线类型是传统缝合线(增加 173%)还是带刺缝合线(增加 204%),外周修复都提高了所有修复的 2 毫米间隙阻力。外围修复后,两种核心缝合线类型的最大拉伸强度均无变化。外围修复总是先于核心修复失败,有倒刺的核心修复在 74.2 ± 20.4 N 的载荷下明显高于有倒刺的核心修复在 57.8 ± 12.2 N 的载荷下(P = .04)。结论:在线性测试中,传统和带倒钩的屈肌腱修复中,增加外围修复可提高间隙阻力,但不能提高极限抗拉强度。使用倒钩缝合线进行的四股十字形屈肌腱修复可能需要外围修复才能承受生理负荷,因为仅使用倒钩缝合线进行核心修复是不够的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Monteggia Fracture Outcomes: Acute to Chronic. Outcomes in Ballistic Injuries to the Hand: Fractures and Nerve/Tendon Damage as Predictors of Poor Outcomes. Predictors of Digital Amputation in Diabetic Patients With Surgically Treated Finger Infections. The Prevalence of Depression and PTSD in Adults With Surgically Managed Traumatic Upper-Extremity Amputations. Postoperative Functional Analysis of Double Crush Versus Single Peripheral Nerve Decompression: A Retrospective Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1