BACKGROUND: A previous study suggests the double Krackow suture (locking-loop) weave technique is nearly twice as strong as the single Bunnell or single Kessler suture repair techniques. Our hypothesis was that the strength of different repair techniques would be comparable if a similar number of suture strands cross the repair site. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four fresh-frozen human cadaver Achilles tendons were used to test maximum strength of three suture techniques (double Bunnell, double Kessler, and double Krackow). The simulated ruptures were created in the midsubstance of the Achilles tendon, five centimeters proximal to its calcaneal insertion. All repairs were performed with No. 2 polyester (Mersilene, Ethicon, Sommerville, NJ) nonabsorbable suture in standard fashion for each technique, with four strands crossing the repair site. The tendons were then anchored to a materials testing machine (Instron, Canton, MA) through a calcaneal pin distally and a modified soft tissue clamp proximally. Tendons were loaded with continuous tension at a head speed of 0.85 cm/s. RESULTS: All repairs failed at the site of the suture knots, none pulling out through the substance of the tendon. A one-way analysis of variance was performed on the maximum force at failure of each repair technique. No statistically significant difference was noted between the double Krackow weave (199.9 +/- 20 N), the double Bunnell weave (196.2 +/- 45 N), and the double Kessler weave (166.9 +/- 51 N). CONCLUSION: We found that in a laboratory model of cadaveric Achilles tendon repairs there was no significant difference in strength between the Krackow, Bunnell, and Kessler suture techniques, when each was performed with a double suture weave. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is a cadaveric study that attempts to simulate the clinical parameters of Achilles tendon ruptures, repairs, and repair failures to examine the strength of different repair techniques.
BACKGROUND: A previous study suggests the double Krackow suture (locking-loop) weave technique is nearly twice as strong as the single Bunnell or single Kessler suture repair techniques. Our hypothesis was that the strength of different repair techniques would be comparable if a similar number of suture strands cross the repair site. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four fresh-frozen human cadaver Achilles tendons were used to test maximum strength of three suture techniques (double Bunnell, double Kessler, and double Krackow). The simulated ruptures were created in the midsubstance of the Achilles tendon, five centimeters proximal to its calcaneal insertion. All repairs were performed with No. 2 polyester (Mersilene, Ethicon, Sommerville, NJ) nonabsorbable suture in standard fashion for each technique, with four strands crossing the repair site. The tendons were then anchored to a materials testing machine (Instron, Canton, MA) through a calcaneal pin distally and a modified soft tissue clamp proximally. Tendons were loaded with continuous tension at a head speed of 0.85 cm/s. RESULTS: All repairs failed at the site of the suture knots, none pulling out through the substance of the tendon. A one-way analysis of variance was performed on the maximum force at failure of each repair technique. No statistically significant difference was noted between the double Krackow weave (199.9 +/- 20 N), the double Bunnell weave (196.2 +/- 45 N), and the double Kessler weave (166.9 +/- 51 N). CONCLUSION: We found that in a laboratory model of cadaveric Achilles tendon repairs there was no significant difference in strength between the Krackow, Bunnell, and Kessler suture techniques, when each was performed with a double suture weave. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is a cadaveric study that attempts to simulate the clinical parameters of Achilles tendon ruptures, repairs, and repair failures to examine the strength of different repair techniques.
Authors: Johannes Schneppendahl; Simon Thelen; Alberto Schek; Ioana Bala; Mohssen Hakimi; Jan-Peter Grassmann; Christian Eichler; Joachim Windolf; Michael Wild Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Patrick Sadoghi; Claudio Rosso; Victor Valderrabano; Andreas Leithner; Patrick Vavken Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Michael C Aynardi; Lara C Atwater; Roshan Melvani; Brent G Parks; Adrian G Paez; Stuart D Miller Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Zhi Fang; Ting Zhu; Wei Liang Shen; Qiao Mei Tang; Jia Lin Chen; Zi Yin; Jun Feng Ji; Boon Chin Heng; Hong Wei Ouyang; Xiao Chen Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Julianne Huegel; James F Boorman-Padgett; Courtney A Nuss; Mary Catherine C Minnig; Peter Y Chan; Andrew F Kuntz; Erik I Waldorff; Nianli Zhang; James T Ryaby; Louis J Soslowsky Journal: J Biomech Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Gi Won Choi; Hak Jun Kim; Tae Hoon Lee; Se Hyun Park; Hee Seop Lee Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Martin C Jordan; Stefanie Hoelscher-Doht; Kai Fehske; Fabian Gilbert; Hendrik Jansen; Rainer H Meffert Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 2.359