Journal of Hand Surgery
Volume 35, Issue 4 , Pages 540-545, April 2010

Mechanical Strength of the Side-to-Side Versus Pulvertaft Weave Tendon Repair

Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery and Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA; Department of Hand Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

Received 21 April 2009; accepted 13 January 2010. published online 12 March 2010.

Purpose

The side-to-side (SS) tendon suture technique was designed to function as a repair that permits immediate postoperative activation and mobilization of a transferred muscle. This study was designed to test the strength and stiffness of the SS technique against a variation of the Pulvertaft (PT) repair technique.

Methods

Flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) and flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) tendons were harvested from 4 fresh cadavers and used as a model system. Seven SS and 6 PT repairs were performed, using the FDS as the donor and the FDP as the recipient tendon. For SS repairs, the FDS was woven through one incision in the FDP and was joined with 4 cross-stitch running sutures down both sides and one double-loop suture at each tendon free end. For PT repairs, the FDS was woven through 3 incisions in the FDP and joined with a double-loop suture at both ends of the overlap and 4 evenly spaced mattress sutures between the ends. Tendon repairs were placed in a tensile testing machine, preconditioned, and tested to failure.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in cross-sectional area (p = .99) or initial length (p = .93) between SS and PT repairs. Therefore, all comparisons between methods were made using measures of loads and deformations, rather than stresses and strains. All failures occurred in the repair region, rather than at the clamps. However, failure mechanisms were different between the 2 techniques—PT repairs failed by the suture knots either slipping or pulling through the tendon material, followed by the FDS tendon pulling through the FDP tendon; SS repairs failed by shearing of fibers within the FDS. Load at first failure, ultimate load, and repair stiffness were all significantly different between SS and PT techniques; in all cases, the mean value for SS was higher than for PT.

Conclusions

The SS repair using a cross-stitch suture technique was significantly stronger and stiffer than the PT repair using a mattress suture technique. This suggests that using SS repairs could enable patients to load the repair soon after surgery. Ultimately, this should reduce the risk of developing adhesions and result in improved functional outcome and fewer complications in the acute postoperative period. Future work will address the specific mechanisms (eg, suture-throw technique and tendon-weave technique) that underlie the improved strength and stiffness of the SS repair.

Key words: Early mobilization, flexor tendon, muscle, tendon transfer, tetraplegia

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 The authors would like to acknowledge Mr. Robert Healey for help with the data collection, Professor David Amiel for the use of material testing equipment, National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for postdoctoral funding (S.H.M.B.), Swedish Research Council grant 11200, and National Institutes of Health grant HD050837.

 This study was supported in part by postdoctoral funding from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (S.H.M.B.) and by grants from the Swedish Research Council (grant 11200) and National Institutes of Health (grant HD050837). No benefits in any form have been received or will be received related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

PII: S0363-5023(10)00050-X

doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.01.009

Journal of Hand Surgery
Volume 35, Issue 4 , Pages 540-545, April 2010