gms | German Medical Science

49. Jahrestagung der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Plastische, Ästhetische und Rekonstruktive Chirurgie (ÖGPÄRC), 42. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Plastischen, Rekonstruktiven und Ästhetischen Chirurgen e. V. (DGPRÄC), 16. Jahrestagung der Vereinigung der Deutschen Ästhetisch-Plastischen Chirurgen e. V. (VDÄPC)

29.09. - 01.10.2011, Innsbruck

Artikel

Artikel empfehlen

New developments in tendon repairs: The modified Adelaide repair and the knotless barbed suture tenorrhaphy – a biomechanical comparison

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • author Tim Peltz - Bronte, Sydney, NSW, Australia / Muenchen
  • Roger Haddad - Prince of Wales Hospital Department for Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Surgical & Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, University of New South Wales, Sydney / Australia
  • Peter Scougall - Prince of Wales Hospital Department for Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Surgical & Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, University of New South Wales, Sydney / Australia
  • Sean Nicklin - Prince of Wales Hospital Department for Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Surgical & Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, University of New South Wales, Sydney / Australia
  • Mark Gianoutsos - Prince of Wales Hospital Department for Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Surgical & Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, University of New South Wales, Sydney / Australia
  • Bill Walsh - Prince of Wales Hospital Department for Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Surgical & Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, University of New South Wales, Sydney / Australia

Österreichische Gesellschaft für Plastische, Ästhetische und Rekonstruktive Chirurgie. Deutsche Gesellschaft der Plastischen, Rekonstruktiven und Ästhetischen Chirurgen. Vereinigung der Deutschen Ästhetisch-Plastischen Chirurgen. 49. Jahrestagung der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Plastische, Ästhetische und Rekonstruktive Chirurgie (ÖGPÄRC), 42. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Plastischen, Rekonstruktiven und Ästhetischen Chirurgen (DGPRÄC), 16. Jahrestagung der Vereinigung der Deutschen Ästhetisch-Plastischen Chirurgen (VDÄPC). Innsbruck, 29.09.-01.10.2011. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2011. Doc11dgpraecP118B

doi: 10.3205/11dgpraec303, urn:nbn:de:0183-11dgpraec3037

Veröffentlicht: 27. September 2011

© 2011 Peltz et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.

Gliederung

Text

Introduction: Current literature suggests that the Adelaide Repair is not only stronger than other four-strand techniques, but also is a favorable repair in terms of gap formation. In this study we have modified the Adelaide suture configuration by interlocking its distal components. Additionally we introduce a new, potent tendon repair technique: The knotless barbed suture tenorrhaphy. Aim of this study was to compare these two new methods with the "gold standard" focusing not only on maximum load capacity but especially on gap formation.

Materials and methods: Deep flexor tendons were harvested from adult sheep forelimbs. Three groups were randomly divided and 12 repairs in each group were performed using different repair techniques: The (4-strand) “Adelaide” repair technique, the (4-strand) “Modified Adelaide” repair technique and a new (4-strand) barbed suture tendon repair technique. All repairs were performed by one surgeon using 3-0 braided polyester sutures (Ticron) for the “Adelaide” and “Modified Adelaide” repair group and a new polyglyconate 3-0 barbed suture (V-Loc) for the barbed suture repair group. No epitendinous repair was added. Cyclic (3N to 30N) and static tension loading was performed using a MTS Bionix machine. Repairs were analyzed at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 cycles. Thereafter, a tensile pull to failure was performed.

Results: Significant differences between the three tested groups could be shown regarding gapping and maximum load to failure (see figure). These results were independent to the size of the tendon or other factors.