Hatcher G Cox1, J Bradford Hill1, Anthony F Colon1, Pooyan Abbasi2, Aviram M Giladi1, Ryan D Katz3. 1. The Curtis National Hand Center, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD. 2. The Curtis National Hand Center, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD; MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD. 3. The Curtis National Hand Center, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: editor@curtishand.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The A2 and A4 pulleys of the flexor tendon system have traditionally been considered critical components of efficient digital flexion. This dogma has recently been challenged. Using fresh human cadaveric hands and a model to measure force and excursion, we sought to clarify the clinical importance of releasing different pulleys. METHODS: Combinations of A1, A2, and A4 pulleys were released on the index, middle, ring, and little fingers of fresh, cadaveric hands. The excursion was measured as the distance the tendon was pulled by the motor to achieve palm touchdown. The force applied by the motor was constant (25 N); work was derived from the product of force and excursion (distance). The change in excursion and work needed to achieve palm touchdown before and after pulley release was measured. Excursion varies among digits and specimens at baseline; therefore, the percentage change from the intact state was used to compare groups. We compared A2 versus A1, A4 versus A1, A4 versus A2, A1 + A2 versus A2, and A1 + A4 versus A4. RESULTS: Isolated A2 or A4 release had the greatest individual impact on the excursion (4.77% ± 1.52% and 3.88% ± 1.93%, respectively). When A1 was released with A2 (9.90% ± 2.52%), the additional impact on the excursion was significant; however, when A1 was released with A4 (2.63% ± 2.81%), the impact was marginal. No clinically or statistically significant change in the work of flexion was detected. CONCLUSIONS: A1 release was clinically significant when added to A2 release but not when added to A4 release. Sacrifice of the A2 and A4 pulleys resulted in a statistically significant, but clinically negligible, difference in flexor tendon excursion. These data suggest that the A1 pulley should be preserved when other proximal pulley components are likely to be compromised. These data also add further support to the concept that the A2 pulley or the A4 pulley can be released as needed for optimal tenorrhaphy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: During flexor tendon repair, the length of contiguous pulley release may have more impact on final tendon excursion than which specific pulleys are released.
PURPOSE: The A2 and A4 pulleys of the flexor tendon system have traditionally been considered critical components of efficient digital flexion. This dogma has recently been challenged. Using fresh human cadaveric hands and a model to measure force and excursion, we sought to clarify the clinical importance of releasing different pulleys. METHODS: Combinations of A1, A2, and A4 pulleys were released on the index, middle, ring, and little fingers of fresh, cadaveric hands. The excursion was measured as the distance the tendon was pulled by the motor to achieve palm touchdown. The force applied by the motor was constant (25 N); work was derived from the product of force and excursion (distance). The change in excursion and work needed to achieve palm touchdown before and after pulley release was measured. Excursion varies among digits and specimens at baseline; therefore, the percentage change from the intact state was used to compare groups. We compared A2 versus A1, A4 versus A1, A4 versus A2, A1 + A2 versus A2, and A1 + A4 versus A4. RESULTS: Isolated A2 or A4 release had the greatest individual impact on the excursion (4.77% ± 1.52% and 3.88% ± 1.93%, respectively). When A1 was released with A2 (9.90% ± 2.52%), the additional impact on the excursion was significant; however, when A1 was released with A4 (2.63% ± 2.81%), the impact was marginal. No clinically or statistically significant change in the work of flexion was detected. CONCLUSIONS: A1 release was clinically significant when added to A2 release but not when added to A4 release. Sacrifice of the A2 and A4 pulleys resulted in a statistically significant, but clinically negligible, difference in flexor tendon excursion. These data suggest that the A1 pulley should be preserved when other proximal pulley components are likely to be compromised. These data also add further support to the concept that the A2 pulley or the A4 pulley can be released as needed for optimal tenorrhaphy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: During flexor tendon repair, the length of contiguous pulley release may have more impact on final tendon excursion than which specific pulleys are released.