Suppr超能文献

导管辅助下原发性指神经修复中缝线的最佳数量和位置

The optimal number and location of sutures in conduit-assisted primary digital nerve repair.

作者信息

Tang Peter, Schimoler Patrick J, Kim Hongkyun, Gillman Brad M, Kharlamov Alexander, Miller Mark Carl

机构信息

1 Orthopaedic Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

4 Mechanical Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

出版信息

J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2018 Jul;43(6):621-625. doi: 10.1177/1753193418764290. Epub 2018 Mar 21.

Abstract

We evaluated the strength of conduit-assisted primary digital nerve repairs, with varying suture location and number, in 56 digital nerves from cadavers. Maximum load to failure was tested for the following seven repairs, designated by the number of epineurial sutures followed by the number of sutures at each end of the conduit: 4 (epineurial sutures)/0 (sutures at each end of conduit), 4/4, 4/2, 2/2, 0/4, 0/2, 0/1. The 4/4 repair (3.0 N) was significantly stronger than 4/0 (1.5 N), 2/2 (1.6 N), 0/4 (2.0 N), 0/2 (1.4 N) and 0/1 (1.1 N). Considering all repair types, there was a significant correlation between suture number and failure load, with the strongest repair having a total of 12 sutures, which is impractical. Reasonable repair options, which have two sutures at each end of the conduit and either two or no epineurial sutures, are as strong as a four-suture epineurial repair but have less sutures at the coaptation site.

摘要

我们评估了在56条来自尸体的指神经中,不同缝合位置和数量的导管辅助原发性指神经修复的强度。对以下七种修复方式进行了破坏时的最大负荷测试,由神经外膜缝线数量和导管两端缝线数量指定:4(神经外膜缝线)/0(导管两端缝线)、4/4、4/2、2/2、0/4、0/2、0/1。4/4修复方式(3.0N)明显强于4/0(1.5N)、2/2(1.6N)、0/4(2.0N)、0/2(1.4N)和0/1(1.1N)。考虑所有修复类型,缝线数量与破坏负荷之间存在显著相关性,最强的修复方式共有12针缝线,这并不实际。合理的修复选择是在导管两端各有两针缝线,并有两针或无神经外膜缝线,其强度与四针神经外膜修复相同,但在吻合部位的缝线较少。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验