Low T H, Ahmad T S, Ng E S
National Orthopaedic Centre of Excellence for Research and Learning (NOCERAL), Department of Orthopaedics Surgery, University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012 Feb;37(2):101-8. doi: 10.1177/1753193411409840. Epub 2011 Jun 2.
We have compared a simple four-strand flexor tendon repair, the single cross-stitch locked repair using a double-stranded suture (dsSCL) against two other four-strand repairs: the Pennington modified Kessler with double-stranded suture (dsPMK); and the cruciate cross-stitch locked repair with single-stranded suture (Modified Sandow). Thirty fresh frozen cadaveric flexor digitorum profundus tendons were transected and repaired with one of the core repair techniques using identical suture material and reinforced with identical peripheral sutures. Bulking at the repair site and tendon-suture junctions was measured. The tendons were subjected to linear load-to-failure testing. Results showed no significant difference in ultimate tensile strength between the Modified Sandow (36.8 N) and dsSCL (32.6 N) whereas the dsPMK was significantly weaker (26.8 N). There were no significant differences in 2 mm gap force, stiffness or bulk between the three repairs. We concluded that the simpler dsSCL repair is comparable to the modified Sandow repair in tensile strength, stiffness and bulking.
我们比较了一种简单的四股屈肌腱修复方法，即使用双链缝线的单十字缝合法锁定修复（dsSCL）与另外两种四股修复方法：使用双链缝线的彭宁顿改良凯斯勒缝合法（dsPMK）；以及使用单链缝线的十字交叉缝合法锁定修复（改良桑多法）。将30条新鲜冷冻的尸体指深屈肌腱切断，采用其中一种核心修复技术进行修复，使用相同的缝合材料，并使用相同的周边缝线进行加强。测量修复部位和肌腱-缝线连接处的肿胀情况。对肌腱进行线性破坏载荷测试。结果显示，改良桑多法（36.8 N）和dsSCL（32.6 N）之间的极限抗拉强度无显著差异，而dsPMK明显较弱（26.8 N）。三种修复方法在2 mm间隙力、刚度或肿胀方面无显著差异。我们得出结论，更简单的dsSCL修复在拉伸强度、刚度和肿胀方面与改良桑多法修复相当。
