Cargando…

Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) novel knot array compared to traditional sutures for zone two flexor tendon injury – a biomechanical feasibility study

BACKGROUND: Flexor tendon injuries pose many challenges for the treating surgeon, the principal of which is creating a strong enough repair to allow early active motion, preserving a low-profile of the repair to prevent buckling and subsequent pulley venting. A main concern is that a low-profile rep...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kadar, Assaf, Fainzack, Alon, Vigler, Mordechai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8978384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35379221
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05279-9
_version_ 1784680952877809664
author Kadar, Assaf
Fainzack, Alon
Vigler, Mordechai
author_facet Kadar, Assaf
Fainzack, Alon
Vigler, Mordechai
author_sort Kadar, Assaf
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Flexor tendon injuries pose many challenges for the treating surgeon, the principal of which is creating a strong enough repair to allow early active motion, preserving a low-profile of the repair to prevent buckling and subsequent pulley venting. A main concern is that a low-profile repair is prone to gap formation and repair failure. The Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) all suture staple device claims to allow a strong and low-profile repair of the flexor tendon. The purpose of this study is to test the effects of the DTG™ device in early active motion simulation on range of motion, load to failure and gap formation and to compare it to traditional suturing technique. METHODS: Twelve fresh-frozen cadaveric fingers were assigned to two groups: DTG™ device (n = 9) and traditional suturing (double Kessler 4-core suture and a peripheral suture, n = 3). The deep flexor was incised and repaired in zone 2, and active motion simulation was carried out with a cyclic flexion–extension machine. Finger range of motion and gap formation were measured, as well as load to failure and method of repair failure. RESULTS: Following motion simulation, ROM decreased from 244.0 ± 9.9° to 234.5 ± 5.8° for the DTG™ device compared to 234.67 ± 6.51° to 211.67 ± 10.50° for traditional suturing. The DTG™ repair demonstrated gap formation of 0.93 ± 0.18 mm in 3 of 8 specimens after applying 1 kg load, which negated after load removal. Load to failure averaged 76.51 ± 23.15 N for DTG™ and 66.31 ± 40.22 N for the traditional repair. Repair failure occurred as the suture material broke for the DTG™ array and at the knot level for the traditional repair. CONCLUSIONS: The DTG™ all-suture stapling concept achieved a strong low-profile repair in zone 2 flexor tendon injury after active motion simulation. Further clinical studies will be needed to determine the effectiveness of this device compared to traditional techniques. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05279-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8978384
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89783842022-04-05 Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) novel knot array compared to traditional sutures for zone two flexor tendon injury – a biomechanical feasibility study Kadar, Assaf Fainzack, Alon Vigler, Mordechai BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: Flexor tendon injuries pose many challenges for the treating surgeon, the principal of which is creating a strong enough repair to allow early active motion, preserving a low-profile of the repair to prevent buckling and subsequent pulley venting. A main concern is that a low-profile repair is prone to gap formation and repair failure. The Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) all suture staple device claims to allow a strong and low-profile repair of the flexor tendon. The purpose of this study is to test the effects of the DTG™ device in early active motion simulation on range of motion, load to failure and gap formation and to compare it to traditional suturing technique. METHODS: Twelve fresh-frozen cadaveric fingers were assigned to two groups: DTG™ device (n = 9) and traditional suturing (double Kessler 4-core suture and a peripheral suture, n = 3). The deep flexor was incised and repaired in zone 2, and active motion simulation was carried out with a cyclic flexion–extension machine. Finger range of motion and gap formation were measured, as well as load to failure and method of repair failure. RESULTS: Following motion simulation, ROM decreased from 244.0 ± 9.9° to 234.5 ± 5.8° for the DTG™ device compared to 234.67 ± 6.51° to 211.67 ± 10.50° for traditional suturing. The DTG™ repair demonstrated gap formation of 0.93 ± 0.18 mm in 3 of 8 specimens after applying 1 kg load, which negated after load removal. Load to failure averaged 76.51 ± 23.15 N for DTG™ and 66.31 ± 40.22 N for the traditional repair. Repair failure occurred as the suture material broke for the DTG™ array and at the knot level for the traditional repair. CONCLUSIONS: The DTG™ all-suture stapling concept achieved a strong low-profile repair in zone 2 flexor tendon injury after active motion simulation. Further clinical studies will be needed to determine the effectiveness of this device compared to traditional techniques. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05279-9. BioMed Central 2022-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8978384/ /pubmed/35379221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05279-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Kadar, Assaf
Fainzack, Alon
Vigler, Mordechai
Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) novel knot array compared to traditional sutures for zone two flexor tendon injury – a biomechanical feasibility study
title Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) novel knot array compared to traditional sutures for zone two flexor tendon injury – a biomechanical feasibility study
title_full Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) novel knot array compared to traditional sutures for zone two flexor tendon injury – a biomechanical feasibility study
title_fullStr Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) novel knot array compared to traditional sutures for zone two flexor tendon injury – a biomechanical feasibility study
title_full_unstemmed Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) novel knot array compared to traditional sutures for zone two flexor tendon injury – a biomechanical feasibility study
title_short Dynamic Tendon Grip (DTG™) novel knot array compared to traditional sutures for zone two flexor tendon injury – a biomechanical feasibility study
title_sort dynamic tendon grip (dtg™) novel knot array compared to traditional sutures for zone two flexor tendon injury – a biomechanical feasibility study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8978384/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35379221
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05279-9
work_keys_str_mv AT kadarassaf dynamictendongripdtgnovelknotarraycomparedtotraditionalsuturesforzonetwoflexortendoninjuryabiomechanicalfeasibilitystudy
AT fainzackalon dynamictendongripdtgnovelknotarraycomparedtotraditionalsuturesforzonetwoflexortendoninjuryabiomechanicalfeasibilitystudy
AT viglermordechai dynamictendongripdtgnovelknotarraycomparedtotraditionalsuturesforzonetwoflexortendoninjuryabiomechanicalfeasibilitystudy