Suture material for flexor tendon repair: 3–0 V-Loc versus 3–0 Stratafix in a biomechanical comparison ex vivo

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Karsten Schmidt¹  Rainer H Meffert¹  Rafael G Jakubietz¹  Michael G Jakubietz¹  Stefanie Hölscher-Doht¹  Martin C Jordan¹ 

[1] Department of Trauma, Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Würzburg University Hospital, Oberdürrbacher Straße 6, Würzburg 97080, Germany

关键词: V-Loc;    Stratafix;    Knotless tendon repair;    Flexor tendon repair;    Barbed suture material;    Barbed suture;   

Others  :  1152190
DOI  :  10.1186/s13018-014-0072-9

 received in 2014-01-21, accepted in 2014-07-25,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Barbed suture material offers the possibility of knotless flexor tendon repair, as suggested in an increasing number of biomechanical studies. There are currently two different absorbable barbed suture products available, V-Loc¿ and Stratafix¿, and both have not been compared to each other with regard to flexor tendon repair. The purpose of this study was to evaluate both suture materials for primary stability under static and cyclic loading in a biomechanical ex vivo model.

Methods

Forty fresh porcine flexor digitorum profundus tendons were randomized in two groups. A four-strand modified Kessler suture technique was used to repair the tendon either with a 3¿0 V-Loc¿ or 3¿0 Stratafix¿ without a knot. Parameters of interest were mode of failure, 2-mm gap formation force, displacement, stiffness and maximum load under static and cyclic testing.

Results

The maximum load was 42.3?±?7.2 for the Stratafix¿ group and 50.7?±?8.8 N for the V-Loc¿ group. Thus, the ultimate tensile strength was significantly higher for V-Loc¿ (p?

Conclusion

V-Loc¿ demonstrates a higher maximum load in tendon reconstruction. The differences in 2-mm gap formation force, displacement and stiffness were not significant. Hereby, the V-Loc¿ has an advantage when used as unidirectional barbed suture for knotless flexor tendon repair.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Jordan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wu YF, Tang JB: Recent developments in flexor tendon repair techniques and factors influencing strength of the tendon repair. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2013, 39(1):16-19.
• [2]Wada A, Kubota H, Miyanishi K, Hatanaka H, Miura H, Iwamoto Y: Comparison of postoperative early active mobilization and immobilization in vivo utilising a four-strand flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg (Br) 2001, 26:301-306.
• [3]Elliot D: Primary flexor tendon repair¿operative repair, pulley management and rehabilitation. J Hand Surg (Br) 2002, 27:507-513.
• [4]Strickland JW: Development of flexor tendon surgery: twenty-five years of progress. J Hand Surg [Am] 2000, 25:214-235.
• [5]Parikh PM, Davison SP, Higgins JP: Barbed suture tenorrhaphy: an ex vivo biomechanical analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009, 124:1551-1558.
• [6]Trocchia AM, Aho HN, Sobol G: A re-exploration of the use of barbed sutures in flexor tendon repairs. Orthopedics 2009, 32:?. doi:10.3928/01477447-20090818-12
• [7]Marrero-Amadeo IC, Chauhan A, Warden SJ, Merrell GA: Flexor tendon repair with a knotless barbed suture: a comparative biomechanical study. J Hand Surg [Am] 2011, 36:1204-1208.
• [8]Gussous YM, Zhao C, Amadio PC, An KN: The resurgence of barbed suture and connecting devices for use in flexor tendon tenorrhaphy. Hand (N Y) 2011, 6:268-275.
• [9]Joyce CW, Whately KE, Chan JC, Murphy M, O'Brien FJ, Carroll SM: Flexor tendon repair: a comparative study between a knotless barbed suture repair and a traditional four-strand monofilament suture repair. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2013, 39(1):40-45.
• [10]McClellan WT, Schessler MJ, Ruch DS, Levin LS, Goldner RD: A knotless flexor tendon repair technique using a bidirectional barbed suture: an ex vivo comparison of three methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011, 128:322e-327e.
• [11]Peltz TS, Haddad R, Scougall PJ, Gianoutsos MP, Bertollo N, Walsh WR: Performance of a knotless four-strand flexor tendon repair with a unidirectional barbed suture device: a dynamic ex vivo comparison. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2014, 39(1):30-39.
• [12]Haddad R, Peltz TS, Walsh WR: Biomechanical evaluation of flexor tendon repair using barbed suture material: a comparative ex vivo study. J Hand Surg [Am] 2011, 36:1565-1566.
• [13]Zeplin PH, Henle M, Zahn RK, Meffert RH, Schmidt K: Tensile strength of flexor tendon repair using barbed suture material in a dynamic ex vivo model. J Hand Microsurg 2012, 4:16-20.
• [14]Zeplin PH, Zahn RK, Meffert RH, Schmidt K: Biomechanical evaluation of flexor tendon repair using barbed suture material: a comparative ex vivo study. J Hand Surg [Am] 2011, 36:446-449.
• [15]Mao WF, Wu YF, Zhou YL, Tang JB: A study of the anatomy and repair strengths of porcine flexor and extensor tendons: are they appropriate experimental models? J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2011, 36:663-669.
• [16]Sebastin SJ, Ho A, Karjalainen T, Chung KC: History and evolution of the Kessler repair. J Hand Surg [Am] 2013, 38:552-561.
• [17]Wada A, Kubota H, Hatanaka H, Hotokezaka S, Miura H, Iwamoto Y: The mechanical properties of locking and grasping suture loop configurations in four-strand core suture techniques. J Hand Surg (Br) 2000, 25:548-551.
• [18]Haddad R, Peltz TS, Lau A, Bertollo N, Nicklin S, Walsh WR: The relationship between gap formation and grip-to-grip displacement during cyclic testing of repaired flexor tendons. J Biomech 2010, 43:2835-2838.
• [19]Wada A, Kubota H, Akiyama T, Hatanaka H, Miura H, Iwamoto Y: Effect of absorbable polydioxanone flexor tendon repair and restricted active mobilization in a canine model. J Hand Surg [Am] 2001, 26:398-406.
• [20]Caulfield RH, Maleki-Tabrizi A, Patel H, Coldham F, Mee S, Nanchahal J: Comparison of zones 1 to 4 flexor tendon repairs using absorbable and unabsorbable four-strand core sutures. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2008, 33:412-417.