Chu Jennifer Y, Chen Tony, Awad Hani A, Elfar John, Hammert Warren C
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, and Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York 14642, USA.
J Hand Surg Am. 2013 Jun;38(6):1084-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.02.015. Epub 2013 Apr 9.
One goal in repairing zone 1 flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) injuries is to create a tendon-bone construct strong enough to allow early rehabilitation while minimizing morbidity. This study compares an all-inside suture repair technique biomechanically with pull-out suture and double-suture anchor repairs.
Repairs were performed on 30 cadaver fingers. In all-inside suture repairs (n = 8), the FDP tendon was attached to bone with two 3-0 Ethibond sutures and tied over the dorsal aspect of distal phalanx. Pull-out suture repairs (n = 8) were performed with 2-0 Prolene suture and tied over a dorsal button. There were 2 suture anchor repair groups: Arthrex Micro Corkscrew anchors preloaded with 2-0 FiberWire suture (n = 7) and Depuy Micro Mitek anchors preloaded with 3-0 Orthocord suture (n = 7). Repair constructs were tested using a servohydraulic materials testing system and loaded until the repair lost 75% of its strength.
There were no statistically significant differences in tensile stiffness, ultimate load, or work to failure between the repairs. Failure mode was suture stretch and gap formation greater than 2 mm at the repair site for all pull-out suture repairs and for 7 of 8 all-inside suture repairs. Two of the Arthrex Micro Corkscrew repairs and 5 of the Depuy Micro Mitek repairs failed by anchor pull-out.
This cadaveric biomechanical study showed no difference in tensile stiffness, ultimate load, and work to failures between an all-inside suture repair technique for zone 1 FDP repairs and previously described pull-out suture and suture anchor repair techniques. The all-inside suture technique also has the advantages of avoiding an external button and the cost of anchors. Therefore, it should be considered as an alternative to other techniques.
This study introduces a new FDP reattachment technique that avoids some of the shortcomings of current techniques.
修复指深屈肌(FDP)1区损伤的一个目标是构建足够坚固的肌腱-骨结构,以允许早期康复,同时将发病率降至最低。本研究对全内置缝合修复技术与抽出缝合及双缝合锚钉修复进行了生物力学比较。
对30根尸体手指进行修复。在全内置缝合修复组(n = 8)中,使用两根3-0 Ethibond缝线将FDP肌腱附着于骨,并在远节指骨背侧打结。抽出缝合修复组(n = 8)使用2-0 Prolene缝线,并在背侧纽扣上打结。有两个缝合锚钉修复组:预加载2-0 FiberWire缝线的Arthrex微型螺旋锚钉组(n = 7)和预加载3-0 Orthocord缝线的Depuy微型Mitek锚钉组(n = 7)。使用伺服液压材料测试系统对修复结构进行测试,并加载直至修复结构丧失其强度的75%。
各修复组之间在拉伸刚度、极限载荷或失效功方面无统计学显著差异。所有抽出缝合修复以及8例全内置缝合修复中的7例的失效模式为缝合线拉伸以及修复部位间隙形成大于2mm。2例Arthrex微型螺旋锚钉修复和5例Depuy微型Mitek锚钉修复因锚钉拔出而失败。
这项尸体生物力学研究表明,用于FDP 1区修复的全内置缝合修复技术与先前描述的抽出缝合及缝合锚钉修复技术在拉伸刚度、极限载荷和失效功方面没有差异。全内置缝合技术还具有避免外部纽扣和锚钉成本的优点。因此,应将其视为其他技术的替代方法。
本研究介绍了一种新的FDP重新附着技术,该技术避免了当前技术的一些缺点。