Published in:
01-04-2020 | Extensor Tendon | Handsurgery
Comparison of various tendon repair techniques in extansor zone 3 injuries: an experimental biomechanical cadaver study
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 4/2020
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
To compare five different repair techniques for extensor tendon zone III modified Kessler (MK), double-modified Kessler (DMK), modified Kessler epitendinous (MKE), double-modified Kessler epitendinous (DMKE), and running-interlocking horizontal mattress (RIHM) in terms of shortening, stiffness, gap formation, and ultimate load to failure.
Methods
A total of 35 human cadaver fingers were randomly assigned to five suture techniques with 7 fingers each and were tested under dynamic and static loading conditions.
Results
DMK was found to be superior over MK in terms of ultimate load to failure (36 N vs. 24 N, respectively), shortening (1.75 vs. 2.20 mm, respectively) and gap formation. However, these two methods had similar characteristics in terms of stiffness. The addition of epitendinous sutures to the repair methods resulted in approximately 40% increase in ultimate load to failure, whereas epitendinous sutures had no effect on shortening. DMKE was found to be superior over MKE in terms of shortening (1.77 vs. 2.22 mm, respectively). However, these two methods had similar characteristics in terms of mean ultimate load to failure and stiffness. RIHM was found to be superior over the other four methods in terms of ultimate load to failure (89 N), stiffness, and shortening (0.75 mm).
Conclusion
RIHM was found to be stronger and more durable for extensor tendon zone III than the other techniques in terms of ultimate load to failure and stiffness.