Daniel A Osei1, Jeffrey G Stepan2, Ryan P Calfee2, Stavros Thomopoulos2, Martin I Boyer2, Ryan Potter2, Richard H Gelberman2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, and the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: oseid@wustl.edu. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, and the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the tensile properties of a 3-0, 4-strand flexor tendon repair with a 4-0, 4-strand repair and a 4-0, 8-strand repair. METHODS: Following evaluation of the intrinsic material properties of the 2 core suture calibers most commonly used in tendon repair (3-0 and 4-0), we tested the mechanical properties of 40 cadaver flexor digitorum profundus tendons after zone II repair with 1 of 3 techniques: a 3-0, 4-strand core repair, a 4-0, 8-strand repair, or a 4-0, 4-strand repair. We compared results across suture caliber for the 2 sutures and across tendon repair methods. RESULTS: Maximum load to failure of 3-0 polyfilament caprolactam suture was 49% greater than that of 4-0 polyfilament caprolactam suture. The cross-sectional area of 3-0 polyfilament caprolactam was 42% greater than that of 4-0 polyfilament caprolactam. The 4-0, 8-strand repair produced greater maximum load to failure when compared with the 2 4-strand techniques. Load at 2-mm gap, stiffness, and work to yield were significantly greater in the 4-0, 8-strand repair than in the 3-0, 4-strand repair. CONCLUSIONS: In an ex vivo model, an 8-strand repair using 4-0 suture was 43% stronger than a 4-strand repair using 3-0 suture, despite the finding that 3-0 polyfilament caprolactam was 49% stronger than 4-0 polyfilament caprolactam. These results suggest that, although larger-caliber suture has superior tensile properties, the number of core suture strands across a repair site has an important effect on time zero, ex vivo flexor tendon repair strength. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgeons should consider using techniques that prioritize multistrand core suture repair over an increase in suture caliber.
PURPOSE: To compare the tensile properties of a 3-0, 4-strand flexor tendon repair with a 4-0, 4-strand repair and a 4-0, 8-strand repair. METHODS: Following evaluation of the intrinsic material properties of the 2 core suture calibers most commonly used in tendon repair (3-0 and 4-0), we tested the mechanical properties of 40 cadaver flexor digitorum profundus tendons after zone II repair with 1 of 3 techniques: a 3-0, 4-strand core repair, a 4-0, 8-strand repair, or a 4-0, 4-strand repair. We compared results across suture caliber for the 2 sutures and across tendon repair methods. RESULTS: Maximum load to failure of 3-0 polyfilament caprolactam suture was 49% greater than that of 4-0 polyfilament caprolactam suture. The cross-sectional area of 3-0 polyfilament caprolactam was 42% greater than that of 4-0 polyfilament caprolactam. The 4-0, 8-strand repair produced greater maximum load to failure when compared with the 2 4-strand techniques. Load at 2-mm gap, stiffness, and work to yield were significantly greater in the 4-0, 8-strand repair than in the 3-0, 4-strand repair. CONCLUSIONS: In an ex vivo model, an 8-strand repair using 4-0 suture was 43% stronger than a 4-strand repair using 3-0 suture, despite the finding that 3-0 polyfilament caprolactam was 49% stronger than 4-0 polyfilament caprolactam. These results suggest that, although larger-caliber suture has superior tensile properties, the number of core suture strands across a repair site has an important effect on time zero, ex vivo flexor tendon repair strength. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgeons should consider using techniques that prioritize multistrand core suture repair over an increase in suture caliber.
Authors: Matthias Vanhees; Andrew R Thoreson; Dirk R Larson; Peter C Amadio; Kai-Nan An; Chunfeng Zhao Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Stephen W Linderman; Ioannis Kormpakis; Richard H Gelberman; Victor Birman; Ulrike G K Wegst; Guy M Genin; Stavros Thomopoulos Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2015-05-25 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Aakash Chauhan; Patrick Schimoler; Mark C Miller; Alexander Kharlamov; Gregory A Merrell; Bradley A Palmer Journal: Hand (N Y) Date: 2017-04-19
Authors: Zaneb Yaseen; Christopher English; Spencer J Stanbury; Tony Chen; Susan Messing; Hani Awad; John C Elfar Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Ryan P Calfee; Sean Boone; Jeffrey G Stepan; Daniel A Osei; Stavros Thomopoulos; Martin I Boyer Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2015-03-20 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Alayna E Loiselle; Kiminori Yukata; Michael B Geary; Sirish Kondabolu; Shanshan Shi; Jennifer H Jonason; Hani A Awad; Regis J O'Keefe Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.494