Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) suture vs fiberwire and polypropylene in flexor tendon repair.
Fiberwire
Flexor tendon repair
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
Seramon®
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
29
11
2020
accepted:
05
04
2021
pubmed:
21
4
2021
medline:
8
10
2021
entrez:
20
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In this study, we evaluate the value of novel suture material based on monofilamentous-extruded polyfluoroethylene (PTFE) compared to polypropylene (PPL) and Fiberwire (FW). 60 flexor tendons were harvested from fresh cadaveric upper extremities. 4-0 sutures strands were used in the PPL, FW and PTFE group. Knotting properties and mechanical characteristics of the suture materials were evaluated. A 4-strand locked cruciate (Adelaide) or a 6-strand (M-Tang) suture technique was applied as core sutures for a tendon repair. Two-way ANOVA tests were performed with the Bonferroni correction. Stable knotting was achieved with 5 throws with the PPL material, 7 throws for FW and 9 throws for PTFE. In the PPL group, linear tensile strength was 45.92 ± 12.53 N, in the FW group 80.11 ± 18.34 N and in the PTFE group 76.16 ± 29.10 N. FW and PTFE are significantly stronger than PPL but show no significant difference among each other. Similar results were obtained in the subgroup comparisons for different repair techniques. The Adelaide and the M-Tang knotting technique showed no significant difference. Fiberwire showed superior handling and knotting properties in comparison to PTFE. However, PTFE allows easier approximation of the stumps. In both, M-Tang and Adelaide repairs, PTFE was equal to FW in terms of repair strength. Both PTFE and FW provide for a robust tendon repair so that early active motion regimens for rehabilitation can be applied.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In this study, we evaluate the value of novel suture material based on monofilamentous-extruded polyfluoroethylene (PTFE) compared to polypropylene (PPL) and Fiberwire (FW).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
60 flexor tendons were harvested from fresh cadaveric upper extremities. 4-0 sutures strands were used in the PPL, FW and PTFE group. Knotting properties and mechanical characteristics of the suture materials were evaluated. A 4-strand locked cruciate (Adelaide) or a 6-strand (M-Tang) suture technique was applied as core sutures for a tendon repair. Two-way ANOVA tests were performed with the Bonferroni correction.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Stable knotting was achieved with 5 throws with the PPL material, 7 throws for FW and 9 throws for PTFE. In the PPL group, linear tensile strength was 45.92 ± 12.53 N, in the FW group 80.11 ± 18.34 N and in the PTFE group 76.16 ± 29.10 N. FW and PTFE are significantly stronger than PPL but show no significant difference among each other. Similar results were obtained in the subgroup comparisons for different repair techniques. The Adelaide and the M-Tang knotting technique showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Fiberwire showed superior handling and knotting properties in comparison to PTFE. However, PTFE allows easier approximation of the stumps. In both, M-Tang and Adelaide repairs, PTFE was equal to FW in terms of repair strength. Both PTFE and FW provide for a robust tendon repair so that early active motion regimens for rehabilitation can be applied.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33876291
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03899-9
pii: 10.1007/s00402-021-03899-9
pmc: PMC8354926
doi:
Substances chimiques
Polypropylenes
0
Polytetrafluoroethylene
9002-84-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1609-1614Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Orthopade. 2015 Oct;44(10):748-56
pubmed: 26334647
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Oct;68(7):575-583
pubmed: 30458569
Hand Clin. 2017 Aug;33(3):455-463
pubmed: 28673622
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Apr;32(4):1272-1279
pubmed: 28065625
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 Feb;137(2):285-292
pubmed: 28074263
J Orthop Res. 1995 Nov;13(6):907-14
pubmed: 8544028
Unfallchirurg. 2020 Feb;123(2):104-113
pubmed: 32016494
Unfallchirurg. 2020 Feb;123(2):114-125
pubmed: 31822942
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2020 Dec;32(6):486-493
pubmed: 33156355
Arch Surg. 1990 May;125(5):647-50
pubmed: 2331223
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Feb;21(2):228-37
pubmed: 22244066
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 Feb;136(2):285-93
pubmed: 26659831
J Hand Ther. 2005 Apr-Jun;18(2):80-5; quiz 86
pubmed: 15891963
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018 Jan;138(1):139-145
pubmed: 29134318
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014 Dec;22(12):791-9
pubmed: 25425614
J Hand Surg Am. 2008 May-Jun;33(5):701-8
pubmed: 18590853
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Jun;141(6):1427-1437
pubmed: 29579022
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015 Sep;40(7):705-10
pubmed: 26115682
J Hand Ther. 2005 Apr-Jun;18(2):112-9
pubmed: 15891969
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2020 Dec;32(6):477-485
pubmed: 33185698
J Craniofac Surg. 2013 Jul;24(4):1428-30
pubmed: 23851824
Hand Surg. 2014;19(2):305-10
pubmed: 24875524
Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2015 Mar;19(1):2-10
pubmed: 25700105
Ann Plast Surg. 2017 Feb;78(2):131-137
pubmed: 26999716
Orthopade. 2020 Sep;49(9):771-783
pubmed: 32776276
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Mar;139(3):429-434
pubmed: 30610416
J Hand Surg Br. 2004 Aug;29(4):386-9
pubmed: 15234506