Biomechanical comparison of double grasping repair versus cross-locked cruciate flexor tendon repair

C. Liam Dwyer, D. Dean Dominy, Timothy E. Cooney, Richard B. Englund, Leonard Gordon, John D. Lubahn

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the in vitro biomechanical properties of tensile strength and gap resistance of a double grasping loop (DGL) flexor tendon repair with the established four-strand cross-locked cruciate (CLC) flexor tendon repair, both with an interlocking horizontal mattress (IHM) epitendinous suture. The hypothesis is that the DGL-IHM method which utilizes two looped core sutures, grasping and locking loops, and a single intralesional knot will have greater strength and increased gap resistance than the CLC-IHM method. Methods: Forty porcine tendons were evenly assigned to either the DGL-IHM or CLC-IHM group. The tendon repair strength, 2-mm gap force and load to failure, was measured under a constant rate of distraction. The stiffness of tendon repair was calculated and the method of repair failure was analyzed. Results: The CLC-IHM group exhibited a statistically significant greater resistance to gapping, a statistically significant higher load to 2-mm gapping (62.0 N), and load to failure (99.7 N) than the DGL-IHM group (37.1 N and 75.1 N, respectively). Ninety percent of CLC-IHM failures were a result of knot failure whereas 30 % of the DGL-IHM group exhibited knot failure. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the CLC-IHM flexor tendon repair method better resists gapping and has a greater tensile strength compared to the experimental DGL-IHM method. The authors believe that while the DGL-IHM provides double the number of sutures at the repair site per needle pass, this configuration does not adequately secure the loop suture to the tendon, resulting in a high percentage of suture pullout and inability to tolerate loads as high as those of the CLC-IHM group.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)16-22
Number of pages7
JournalHand
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Tendons
Sutures
Tensile Strength
Needles
Swine

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Dwyer, C. L., Dominy, D. D., Cooney, T. E., Englund, R. B., Gordon, L., & Lubahn, J. D. (2015). Biomechanical comparison of double grasping repair versus cross-locked cruciate flexor tendon repair. Hand, 10(1), 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-014-9728-5
Dwyer, C. Liam ; Dominy, D. Dean ; Cooney, Timothy E. ; Englund, Richard B. ; Gordon, Leonard ; Lubahn, John D. / Biomechanical comparison of double grasping repair versus cross-locked cruciate flexor tendon repair. In: Hand. 2015 ; Vol. 10, No. 1. pp. 16-22.
@article{651d9128fc024e09824271c758c8a394,
title = "Biomechanical comparison of double grasping repair versus cross-locked cruciate flexor tendon repair",
abstract = "Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the in vitro biomechanical properties of tensile strength and gap resistance of a double grasping loop (DGL) flexor tendon repair with the established four-strand cross-locked cruciate (CLC) flexor tendon repair, both with an interlocking horizontal mattress (IHM) epitendinous suture. The hypothesis is that the DGL-IHM method which utilizes two looped core sutures, grasping and locking loops, and a single intralesional knot will have greater strength and increased gap resistance than the CLC-IHM method. Methods: Forty porcine tendons were evenly assigned to either the DGL-IHM or CLC-IHM group. The tendon repair strength, 2-mm gap force and load to failure, was measured under a constant rate of distraction. The stiffness of tendon repair was calculated and the method of repair failure was analyzed. Results: The CLC-IHM group exhibited a statistically significant greater resistance to gapping, a statistically significant higher load to 2-mm gapping (62.0 N), and load to failure (99.7 N) than the DGL-IHM group (37.1 N and 75.1 N, respectively). Ninety percent of CLC-IHM failures were a result of knot failure whereas 30 {\%} of the DGL-IHM group exhibited knot failure. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the CLC-IHM flexor tendon repair method better resists gapping and has a greater tensile strength compared to the experimental DGL-IHM method. The authors believe that while the DGL-IHM provides double the number of sutures at the repair site per needle pass, this configuration does not adequately secure the loop suture to the tendon, resulting in a high percentage of suture pullout and inability to tolerate loads as high as those of the CLC-IHM group.",
author = "Dwyer, {C. Liam} and Dominy, {D. Dean} and Cooney, {Timothy E.} and Englund, {Richard B.} and Leonard Gordon and Lubahn, {John D.}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11552-014-9728-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "16--22",
journal = "Hand",
issn = "1558-9447",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

Dwyer, CL, Dominy, DD, Cooney, TE, Englund, RB, Gordon, L & Lubahn, JD 2015, 'Biomechanical comparison of double grasping repair versus cross-locked cruciate flexor tendon repair', Hand, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-014-9728-5

Biomechanical comparison of double grasping repair versus cross-locked cruciate flexor tendon repair. / Dwyer, C. Liam; Dominy, D. Dean; Cooney, Timothy E.; Englund, Richard B.; Gordon, Leonard; Lubahn, John D.

In: Hand, Vol. 10, No. 1, 01.01.2015, p. 16-22.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical comparison of double grasping repair versus cross-locked cruciate flexor tendon repair

AU - Dwyer, C. Liam

AU - Dominy, D. Dean

AU - Cooney, Timothy E.

AU - Englund, Richard B.

AU - Gordon, Leonard

AU - Lubahn, John D.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the in vitro biomechanical properties of tensile strength and gap resistance of a double grasping loop (DGL) flexor tendon repair with the established four-strand cross-locked cruciate (CLC) flexor tendon repair, both with an interlocking horizontal mattress (IHM) epitendinous suture. The hypothesis is that the DGL-IHM method which utilizes two looped core sutures, grasping and locking loops, and a single intralesional knot will have greater strength and increased gap resistance than the CLC-IHM method. Methods: Forty porcine tendons were evenly assigned to either the DGL-IHM or CLC-IHM group. The tendon repair strength, 2-mm gap force and load to failure, was measured under a constant rate of distraction. The stiffness of tendon repair was calculated and the method of repair failure was analyzed. Results: The CLC-IHM group exhibited a statistically significant greater resistance to gapping, a statistically significant higher load to 2-mm gapping (62.0 N), and load to failure (99.7 N) than the DGL-IHM group (37.1 N and 75.1 N, respectively). Ninety percent of CLC-IHM failures were a result of knot failure whereas 30 % of the DGL-IHM group exhibited knot failure. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the CLC-IHM flexor tendon repair method better resists gapping and has a greater tensile strength compared to the experimental DGL-IHM method. The authors believe that while the DGL-IHM provides double the number of sutures at the repair site per needle pass, this configuration does not adequately secure the loop suture to the tendon, resulting in a high percentage of suture pullout and inability to tolerate loads as high as those of the CLC-IHM group.

AB - Purpose: This study was conducted to compare the in vitro biomechanical properties of tensile strength and gap resistance of a double grasping loop (DGL) flexor tendon repair with the established four-strand cross-locked cruciate (CLC) flexor tendon repair, both with an interlocking horizontal mattress (IHM) epitendinous suture. The hypothesis is that the DGL-IHM method which utilizes two looped core sutures, grasping and locking loops, and a single intralesional knot will have greater strength and increased gap resistance than the CLC-IHM method. Methods: Forty porcine tendons were evenly assigned to either the DGL-IHM or CLC-IHM group. The tendon repair strength, 2-mm gap force and load to failure, was measured under a constant rate of distraction. The stiffness of tendon repair was calculated and the method of repair failure was analyzed. Results: The CLC-IHM group exhibited a statistically significant greater resistance to gapping, a statistically significant higher load to 2-mm gapping (62.0 N), and load to failure (99.7 N) than the DGL-IHM group (37.1 N and 75.1 N, respectively). Ninety percent of CLC-IHM failures were a result of knot failure whereas 30 % of the DGL-IHM group exhibited knot failure. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the CLC-IHM flexor tendon repair method better resists gapping and has a greater tensile strength compared to the experimental DGL-IHM method. The authors believe that while the DGL-IHM provides double the number of sutures at the repair site per needle pass, this configuration does not adequately secure the loop suture to the tendon, resulting in a high percentage of suture pullout and inability to tolerate loads as high as those of the CLC-IHM group.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925506843&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925506843&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11552-014-9728-5

DO - 10.1007/s11552-014-9728-5

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84925506843

VL - 10

SP - 16

EP - 22

JO - Hand

JF - Hand

SN - 1558-9447

IS - 1

ER -