Su Brian W, Solomons Michael, Barrow Andrew, Senoge Matshediso E, Gilberti Marco, Lubbers Lawrence, Diao Edward, Quitkin H Matthew, Grafe Michael W, Rosenwasser Melvin P
Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Mar;88 Suppl 1 Pt 1:37-49. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00978.
The stainless-steel Teno Fix tendon-repair device has improved biomechanical characteristics compared with those of suture repair, and it was well tolerated in a canine model. The purpose of this study was to compare the Teno Fix with suture repair in a clinical setting.
Sixty-seven patients with isolated zone-II flexor tendon injury were randomized to be treated with a Teno Fix or a four-stranded cruciate suture repair. There were eighty-five injured digits: thirty-four were treated with the Teno Fix, and fifty-one served as controls. A modified leinert rehabilitation technique was employed, with active flexion starting at four weeks postoperatively. Patients were followed for six months by blinded observers who determined the range of motion, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, pinch and grip strength, and pain score on a verbal scale and assessed swelling and neurologic recovery. Adverse outcomes, including device migration and rupture, were monitored at frequent intervals.
Nine of the fifty-one suture repairs ruptured, whereas none of the Teno Fix repairs ruptured (p < 0.01). Five of the nine ruptures were caused by resistive motion against medical advice. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of range of motion, DASH score, pinch and grip strength, pain, swelling, or neurologic recovery. The Teno Fix group had slightly slower resolution of pain and swelling compared with the control group. Of the patients who were available for follow-up at six months, sixteen of the twenty-four treated with a Teno Fix repair and nineteen of the twenty-seven treated with a control repair had a good or excellent result. One Teno Fix device migrated and extruded secondary to a wound infection. Of all eighty-five digits that were operated on, four were thought to have tendons of inadequate size to accommodate the device and nine were deemed to have inadequate exposure to allow placement of the anchors.
The Teno Fix is safe and effective for flexor tendon repair if the tendon size and exposure are sufficient. Tendon repairs with the Teno Fix have lower rupture rates and similar functional outcomes when compared with conventional repair, particularly in patients who are non-compliant with the rehabilitation protocol.
与缝合修复相比,不锈钢Teno Fix肌腱修复装置具有更好的生物力学特性,并且在犬类模型中耐受性良好。本研究的目的是在临床环境中比较Teno Fix与缝合修复。
67例孤立的II区屈肌腱损伤患者被随机分为接受Teno Fix治疗或四股十字缝合修复。共有85个受伤手指:34个接受Teno Fix治疗,51个作为对照。采用改良的莱纳特康复技术,术后四周开始主动屈曲。由不知情的观察者对患者进行为期六个月的随访,他们确定关节活动范围、手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍(DASH)评分、捏力和握力以及言语疼痛评分,并评估肿胀和神经恢复情况。定期监测包括装置移位和破裂在内的不良后果。
51例缝合修复中有9例破裂,而Teno Fix修复无一例破裂(p < 0.01)。9例破裂中有5例是因违抗医嘱进行抗阻运动所致。两组在关节活动范围、DASH评分、捏力和握力、疼痛、肿胀或神经恢复方面无差异。与对照组相比,Teno Fix组疼痛和肿胀的消退略慢。在六个月时可进行随访的患者中,接受Teno Fix修复治疗的24例中有16例、接受对照修复治疗的27例中有19例结果为良好或优秀。1个Teno Fix装置因伤口感染而移位并挤出。在所有接受手术的85个手指中,4个被认为肌腱尺寸不足以容纳该装置,9个被认为暴露不足无法放置锚钉。
如果肌腱尺寸和暴露充分,Teno Fix用于屈肌腱修复是安全有效的。与传统修复相比,使用Teno Fix进行肌腱修复的破裂率更低,功能结果相似,尤其是在不遵守康复方案的患者中。