The aim of the study was to compare side-to-side with step-cut repairs to determine how much of the width it is possible to remove and still keep the repair strong enough to start active mobilization. Porcine flexor tendons were used to create side-to-side, one-third step-cut and half step-cut repairs. There were 15 repairs in each group. The tensile properties of the constructs were measured in a biomechanical testing machine. All repairs failed by the sutures splitting the tendon longitudinally. The maximum load and stiffness were highest in the side-to-side group. Our findings suggest that the half step-cut repair can withstand the forces exerted during active unrestricted movement of the digits in tendons of this size. The advantage of the step-cut repair is reduced bulkiness and less friction, which might compensate for the difference in strength.
BeckerHDavidoffM. Eliminating the gap in flexor tendon surgery. A new method of suture. Hand. 1977, 9: 306–11.
2.
BidicSMVarshneyARuffMDOrensteinHH. Biomechanical comparison of lasso, Pulvertaft weave, and side-by-side tendon repairs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009, 124: 567–71.
3.
BrownSHHentzenERKwanAWardSRFridénJLieberRL. Mechanical strength of the side-to-side versus Pulvertaft weave tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am. 2010, 35: 540–5.
4.
BrusteinMPellegriniJChouekaJHemingerHMassD. Bone suture anchors versus the pullout button for repair of distal profundus tendon injuries: a comparison of strength in human cadaveric hands. J Hand Surg Am. 2001, 26: 489–96.
5.
DonaEGianoutsosMPWalshWR. Optimizing biomechanical performance of the 4-strand cruciate flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am. 2004, 29: 571–80.
6.
FridénJTirrellTFBholaSLieberRL. The mechanical strength of side-to-side tendon repair with mismatched tendon size and shape. J Hand Surg Eur. 2015, 40: 239–45.
7.
FuchsSPWalbeehmETHoviusSE. Biomechanical evaluation of the Pulvertaft versus the ‘wrap around' tendon suture technique. J Hand Surg Eur. 2011, 36: 461–6.
8.
GelbermanRHAmiflDGonsalvesMWooSAkesonWH. The influence of protected passive mobilization on the healing of flexor tendons: a biochemical and microangiographic study. Hand. 1981, 13: 120–8.
9.
GelbermanRHVande BergJSLundborgGN, et al.1983Flexor tendon healing and restoration of the gliding surface. An ultrastructural study in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg Am65: 70–80.
10.
HashimotoTThoresonARAnKNAmadioPCZhaoC. Comparison of step-cut and Pulvertaft attachment for flexor tendon graft: a biomechanics evaluation in an in vitro canine model. J Hand Surg Eur. 2012, 37: 848–54.
11.
HatanakaHManskePR. Effect of the cross-sectional area of locking loops in flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am. 1999, 24: 751–60.
12.
HausmannJTVekszlerGBijakMBeneschTVécseiVGäblerC. Biomechanical comparison of modified Kessler and running suture repair in 3 different animal tendons and in human flexor tendons. J Hand Surg Eur. 2009, 34: 93–101.
13.
HavulinnaJLeppänenOVJärvinenTLGöranssonH. Comparison of modified Kessler tendon suture at different levels in the human flexor digitorum profundus tendon and porcine flexors and porcine extensors: an experimental biomechanical study. J Hand Surg Eur. 2011, 36: 670–6.
14.
MaoWFWuYFZhouYLTangJB. A study of the anatomy and repair strengths of porcine flexor and extensor tendons: are they appropriate experimental models?. J Hand Surg Eur. 2011, 36: 663–9.
15.
MazurekTStrankowskiMCeynowaMRoclawskiM. Tensile strength of a weave tendon suture using tendons of different sizes. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011, 26: 415–8.
16.
McCallisterWVAmbroseHCKatolikLITrumbleTE. Comparison of pullout button versus suture anchor for Zone I flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am. 2006, 31: 246–51.
17.
PulvertaftRG. Tendon grafts for flexor tendon injuries in the fingers and thumb; a study of technique and results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1956, 38: 175–94.
18.
RivlinMEberlinKRKachooeiAR, et al.2016Side-to-side versus Pulvertaft extensor tenorrhaphy—a biomechanical study. J Hand Surg Am41: e393–e7.
19.
SavageR. In vitro studies of a new method of flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Br. 1985, 10: 135–41.
20.
SavageR. The influence of wrist position on the minimum force required for active movement of the interphalangeal joints. J Hand Surg Br. 1988, 13: 262–8.
21.
SchuindFGarcia-EliasMCooneyWPAnKN. Flexor tendon forces: in vivo measurements. J Hand Surg Am. 1992, 17: 291–8.
22.
ShiDWangDWangCLiuA. A novel, inexpensive and easy to use tendon clamp for in vitro biomechanical testing. Med Eng Phys. 2012, 34: 516–20.
23.
StrandenesEEllisonPMølsterAGjerdetNRMoldestadIOHølPJ. Strength of Pulvertaft modifications: tensile testing of porcine flexor tendons. J Hand Surg Eur. 2019, 44: 795–9.
24.
TripathiAKMeeSNMartinDLKatsarmaE. The “transverse intraosseous loop technique” (TILT) to re-insert flexor tendons in Zone 1. J Hand Surg Eur. 2009, 34: 85–9.
