Does strand configuration and number of purchase points affect the biomechanical behavior of a tendon repair? A biomechanical evaluation using different kessler methods of flexor tendon repair.
This study compares the mechanical properties of modified Kessler and double-modified Kessler flexor tendon repair techniques and evaluates simple modifications on both methods. Forty fresh sheep flexor tendons were divided equally into four groups. A transverse sharp cut was done in the middle of each tendon and then repaired with modified Kessler technique, modified Kessler with additional purchase point in the midpoint of each longitudinal strand, double-modified Kessler technique, or a combination of outer Kessler and inner cruciate configuration based on double-modified Kessler technique. The tendons were tested in a tensile testing machine to assess the mechanical performance of the repairs. Outcome measures included gap formation and ultimate forces. The gap strengths of the double-modified Kessler technique (30.85 N, SD 1.90) and double-modified Kessler technique with inner cruciate configuration (33.60 N, SD 4.64) were statistically significantly greater than that of the two-strand modified Kessler (22.56 N, SD 3.44) and modified Kessler with additional purchase configuration (21.75 N, SD 4.03; Tukey honestly significant difference test, P < 0.000). There were statistically significant differences in failure strengths of the all groups (analysis of variance, P < 0.000). With an identical number of strands, the gap formation and ultimate forces of the repairs were not changed by additional locking purchase point in modified Kessler repair or changing the inner strand configuration in double-modified Kessler repair. The results of this study show that the number of strands across the repair site together with the number of locking loops clearly affects the strength of the repair; meanwhile, the longitudinal strand orientation and number of purchase points in a single loop did not affect its strength.
Dogramaci
Yunus
Y
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Mustafa Kemal University Faculty of Medicine, 31100, Antakya, Hatay, Turkey. yunus_latif@yahoo.com
Kalaci
Aydiner
A
Sevinç
Teoman Toni
TT
Esen
Erdinc
E
Komurcu
Mahmut
M
Yanat
Ahmet Nedim
AN
J Hand Surg Br. 2000 Dec;25(6):548-51
11106516
J Hand Surg Am. 1996 Mar;21(2):234-9
8683052
J Hand Surg Am. 1995 Mar;20(2):261-6
7775765
J Hand Surg Br. 2005 Jun;30(3):294-7
15862371
J Hand Surg Br. 1998 Apr;23(2):228-33
9607666
J Hand Surg Am. 2002 May;27(3):508-17
12015728
J Hand Surg Br. 2003 Apr;28(2):106-12
12631479
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001 Oct;16(8):696-701
11535351
J Hand Surg Am. 1992 May;17(3):539-46
1613237
J Hand Surg Am. 1990 Nov;15(6):945-52
2269789
J Hand Surg Br. 1997 Dec;22(6):764-7
9457584
J Hand Surg Am. 1999 Mar;24(2):295-301
10194013
J Hand Surg Am. 1992 Mar;17(2):291-8
1564277
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979 May;63(5):648-52
372992
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Mar;107(3):742-9
11304600
J Hand Surg Am. 1990 Jan;15(1):69-77
2299171
J Hand Surg Am. 1998 Mar;23(2):261-5
9556266
J Hand Surg Br. 1991 Feb;16(1):35-9
2007811
J Hand Surg Am. 1996 May;21(3):456-63
8724480
J Hand Surg Br. 1998 Feb;23(1):41-5
9571478
J Hand Surg Br. 2003 Apr;28(2):113-5
12631480
J Hand Surg Am. 1997 Nov;22(6):995-1003
9471066
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2007;41(3):238-43
17876126
J Hand Surg Am. 1997 Jan;22(1):107-14
9018622
J Hand Surg Br. 1985 Jun;10(2):135-41
3161963
J Hand Surg Br. 2005 Aug;30(4):374-8
15932784
J Hand Surg Am. 1995 Mar;20(2):273-5
7775767
J Hand Surg Br. 1989 Nov;14(4):383-91
2621396
Br J Plast Surg. 2004 Jan;57(1):45-9
14672677
J Hand Surg Br. 1994 Oct;19(5):607-12
7822920