COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Flexor tendon repair with a knotless barbed suture: a comparative biomechanical study.

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that a flexor tendon repair with only a knotless barbed suture technique provides a repair with a greater maximal load to failure and 2-mm gapping resistance than a traditional technique using a 4-strand core plus a running-locking epitendinous suture.

METHODS: We assigned 41 fresh-frozen cadaveric flexor digitorum profundus tendons for repair by either a traditional technique using a 4-strand core (Tajima and horizontal mattress) plus a running-locking epitendinous suture (n = 20) or a bidirectional barbed suture technique using a knotless, 4-strand core secured with 3 transverse passes (n = 21). A biomechanical study was performed on each tendon-suture construct and the tendons were linearly distracted to failure at 100 mm/min. The maximal tensile load to failure, 2-mm gapping tensile load, and mode of failure were determined and statistically compared.

RESULTS: The average maximal load to failure was not significantly different between the traditional repair (48 ± 12 N) and the barbed suture repair (50 ± 14 N). The average 2-mm gapping load was also insignificantly different between the traditional repair (42 ± 12 N) and the barbed suture repair (32 ± 9 N). The traditional repair failed by knot unraveling and suture rupture 35% and 65% of the time, respectively. The barbed suture repair failed by suture pull-out and rupture 67% and 33% of the time, respectively. The average load to failure by suture rupture was insignificantly different between the traditional repair (51 ± 13 N) and the barbed suture repair (63 ± 16 N). The average load to failure by knot unraveling using the traditional repair was 43 ± 11 N, whereas the average load to failure by suture pull-out using the barbed suture repair was 43 ± 8 N.

CONCLUSIONS: The barbed suture repair did not demonstrate a significant difference in maximal load to failure and 2-mm gapping resistance compared with the traditional method of repair.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study examines the biomechanical differences between 2 types of flexor-tendon repair, which can help guide the surgical management for these injuries.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app