This article reviews and highlights complications of flexor tendon repairs. Although the outcomes of flexor tendon repairs have improved over the years, fair or poor functional outcomes are seen, especially in patients whose trauma involves multiple structures of the hand and in zone 5 with multiple tendon lacerations. Rupture of the flexor tendon after repair is no longer a major problem if current repair principles are carefully adhered to. Different degrees of adhesion formations and interphalangeal (IP) joint stiffness still occur in a few patients. Early active postoperative mobilization and use of a shorter splint with sparing of the wrist are effective measures to prevent adhesion formation and IP joint stiffness. Given the overall poor results and high rate of complications with flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) repairs in zone 1, a direct repair of the FDP tendon to any short remnant of the distal insertion with 10-strand or even stronger core suture repair is adopted by many units.
BaerWJungwirthNWulleCSchallerP.Die Beugesehnennaht nach Mantero- eine Alternative?. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2003,
35: 363–7.
2.
CalcagniMVögelinEToblerBBeckmann-FriesVGuidiM.Injuries to the flexor pollicis longus. In: BoyceDEGiddinsGShewringD (Eds). Tendon disorders of the hand and wrist.
Stuttgart,
Thieme, 2022: 138–42.
3.
ChenJZhangAXQianSJWangYJ.Measurement of finger joint motion after flexor tendon repair: smartphone photography compared with traditional goniometry. J Hand Surg Eur. 2021,
46: 825–9.
4.
ChinchalkarSJLarocerie-SalgadoJSuhN.Pathomechanics and management of secondary complications associated with tendon adhesions following flexor tendon repair in zone II. J Hand Microsurg. 2016,
8: 70–9.
5.
CivanOGürsoyMKCavitAÖzcanlıHKaralezliMN.Tenolysis rate after zone 2 flexor tendon repairs. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2020,
31: 281–5.
6.
ComptonJWallLBRomansSGoldfarbCA.Outcomes of acute repair versus nonrepair of zone 1 flexor digitorum profundus tendon injuries. J Hand Surg Am. Epub ahead of print 2022.
7.
DemersAJMoranTEBustosFPForsterGLNatalEDeGeorgeBRJr.Revision of flexor tendon repair: factors associated with flexor tenolysis. Hand (N Y). Epub ahead of print 2022.
8.
DemirdoverCOzturkFAYazganHSYogurtcuNSevindikMVayvadaH.Surgical treatment and functional outcomes of multicomponent soft tissue injuries of the wrist. Hand Surg Rehabil. 2018,
37: 160–6.
9.
DowdMBFigusAHarrisSBSouthgateCMFosterAJElliotD.The results of immediate re-repair of zone 1 and 2 primary flexor tendon repairs which rupture. J Hand Surg Br. 2006,
31: 507–13.
10.
DyCJHernandez-SoriaAMaYRobertsTRDaluiskiA.Complications after flexor tendon repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hand Surg Am. 2012,
37: 543–51.e1.
11.
ElliotDGiesenT.Primary flexor tendon surgery: the search for a perfect result. Hand Clin. 2013,
29: 191–206.
12.
ElliotDMoiemenNSFlemmingAFHarrisSBFosterAJ.The rupture rate of acute flexor tendon repairs mobilized by the controlled active motion regimen. J Hand Surg Br. 1994,
19: 607–12.
13.
GearyMBLiKKChadderdonRCGastonRG.Complications following transosseous repair of zone I flexor tendon injuries. J Hand Surg Am. 2020,
45: 1183.e1–e7.
14.
GiesenTCalcagniMElliotD.Primary flexor tendon repair with early active motion: experience in Europe. Hand Clin. 2017,
33: 465–72.
15.
GiesenTReissnerLBesmensIPolitikouOCalcagniM.Flexor tendon repair in the hand with the M-Tang technique (without peripheral sutures), pulley division, and early active motion. J Hand Surg Eur. 2018,
43: 474–9.
16.
GiesenTSirotakovaMCopseyAJElliotD.Flexor pollicis longus primary repair: further experience with the Tang technique and controlled active mobilization. J Hand Surg Eur. 2009,
34: 758–61.
17.
GüntürkÖBKayalarMKaplanİUludağAÖzaksarKKeleşoğluB.Results of 4-strand modified Kessler core suture and epitendinous interlocking suture followed by modified Kleinert protocol for flexor tendon repairs in Zone 2. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2018,
52: 382–6.
18.
HuqSGeorgeSBoyceDE.Zone 1 flexor tendon injuries: a review of the current treatment options for acute injuries. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013,
66: 1023–31.
19.
KangNMarshDDewarD.The morbidity of the button-over-nail technique for zone 1 flexor tendon repairs. Should we still be using this technique?J Hand Surg Eur. 2008,
33: 566–70.
20.
KaralezliN.Our tenolysis rate after zone 2 flexor tendon repairs and modified Duran passive motion protocol over the past 3 years. J Hand Surg Eur. 2019,
44: 867–8.
21.
LalondeDHMartinAL.Wide-awake flexor tendon repair and early tendon mobilization in zones 1 and 2. Hand Clin. 2013,
29: 207–13.
22.
LiWHammertWC.Complications and clinical outcomes following zone 1 flexor tendon repair using all-inside suture fixation. J Hand Surg Am. Epub ahead of print 2022.
23.
McCallisterWRAmbroseHCKatolikLITrumbleTE.Comparison of pullout button versus suture anchor for zone 1 flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am. 2006,
31: 246–51.
24.
MomeniAGrauelEChangJ.Complications after flexor tendon injuries. Hand Clin. 2010,
26: 179–89.
25.
MoriyaKYoshizuTMakiY.Early active mobilization after primary repair of the flexor pollicis longus tendon. J Orthop Sci. 2021,
26: 792–7.
26.
MoriyaKYoshizuTTsubokawaNNarisawaHHaraKMakiY.Clinical results of releasing the entire A2 pulley after flexor tendon repair in zone 2C. J Hand Surg Eur. 2016a,
41: 822–8.
27.
MoriyaKYoshizuTTsubokawaNNarisawaHHaraKMakiY.Outcomes of release of the entire A4 pulley after flexor tendon repairs in zone 2A followed by early active mobilization. J Hand Surg Eur. 2016b,
41: 400–5.
28.
MoriyaKYoshizuTTsubokawaNNarisawaHMakiY.Incidence of tenolysis and features of adhesions in the digital flexor tendons after multi-strand repair and early active motion. J Hand Surg Eur. 2019,
44: 354–60.
29.
MoriyaKYoshizuTTsubokawaNNarisawaHMatsuzawaSMakiY.Outcomes of flexor tendon repairs in zone 2 subzones with early active mobilization. J Hand Surg Eur. 2017,
42: 896–902.
30.
OrkarKSWattsCIwuagwuFC.A comparative analysis of the outcome of flexor tendon repair in the index and little fingers: does the little finger fare worse?J Hand Surg Eur. 2012,
37: 20–6.
31.
PanZJPanLXuYFMaTYaoLH.Outcomes of 200 digital flexor tendon repairs using updated protocols and 30 repairs using an old protocol: experience over 7 years. J Hand Surg Eur. 2020,
45: 56–63.
32.
PanZJQinJZhouXChenJRobust thumb flexor tendon repairs with a six-strand M-Tang method, pulley venting, and early active motion. J Hand Surg Eur. 2017,
42: 909–14.
33.
PanZJXuYFPanLChenJ.Zone 2 flexor tendon repairs using a tensioned strong core suture, sparse peripheral stitches and early active motion: results in 60 fingers. J Hand Surg Eur. 2019,
44: 361–6.
34.
PeckFHBücherCAWatsonJSRoeA.A comparative study of two methods of controlled mobilization of flexor tendon repairs in zone 2. J Hand Surg Br. 1998,
23: 41–5.
35.
PulosNBozentkaDJ.Management of complications of flexor tendon injuries. Hand Clin. 2015,
31: 293–9.
36.
RigoIZRøkkumM.Predictors of outcome after primary flexor tendon repair in zone 1, 2 and 3. J Hand Surg Eur. 2016,
41: 793–801.
37.
SadekAF.Flexor digitorum profundus with or without flexor digitorum superficialis tendon repair in acute Zone 2B injuries. J Hand Surg Eur. 2020,
45: 1034–44.
38.
SavageR.The evolution of end-to-end surgical tendon repairs. In: TangJB (Ed). Tendon surgery of the hand, 1st edn.
Philadelphia,
Saunders, 2012: 239–45.
39.
SavageRRisitanoG.Flexor tendon repair using a “six strand” method of repair and early active mobilisation. J Hand Surg Br. 1989,
14: 396–9.
40.
SeilerJG3rd. Flexor tendon injury. In: Wolf SW, Hotchkiss RN, Pederson WC, et al. (Ed). Green's operative hand surgery, 6th edition. New York,Churchill Livingstone, 2011, Vol.
1: pp. 189–207.
41.
StarrHMSnoddyMHammondKESeilerJGIII.Flexor tendon repair rehabilitation protocols: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Am. 2013,
38: 1712–7.e1–14.
42.
StricklandJW.Development of flexor tendon surgery: twenty-five years of progress. J Hand Surg Am. 2000,
25: 214–35.
43.
SvingenJWiigMTuressonCFarneboSArnerM.Risk factors for reoperation after flexor tendon repair: a registry study. J Hand Surg Eur. 2022,
47: 1071–6.
44.
TangJB.Clinical outcomes associated with flexor tendon repair. Hand Clin. 2005,
21: 199–210.
45.
TangJB.Indications, methods, postoperative motion and outcome evaluation of primary flexor tendon repairs in Zone 2. J Hand Surg Eur. 2007,
32: 118–29.
46.
TangJB.Outcomes and evaluation of flexor tendon repair. Hand Clin. 2013,
29: 251–9.
47.
TangJB.Recent evolutions in flexor tendon repairs and rehabilitation. J Hand Surg Eur. 2018a,
43: 469–73.
TangJB.Direct repair of flexor tendons close to bony insertion and ruptured collateral ligaments. Hand Clin. 2022,
38: 337–41.
51.
TangJBZhouXPanZJQingJGongKTChenJ.Strong digital flexor tendon repair, extension-flexion test, and early active flexion: experience in 300 tendons. Hand Clin. 2017,
33: 455–63.
52.
WilhelmiBJKangRHWagesDJLeeWPMayJWJr.Optimizing independent finger flexion with zone V flexor repairs using the Massachusetts General Hospital flexor tenorrhaphy and early protected active motion. J Hand Surg Am. 2005,
30: 230–6.
53.
WuYFTangJB.The impact of transverse components on resistance and ultimate strength of 6-strand tendon repairs. J Hand Surg Eur. 2021,
46: 836–41.
54.
YangQQChenJZhouYLTangJB.The influence of a nanoparticle gel loaded with siRNA-cyclooxygenase on flexor tendon healing: an in vivo animal study. J Hand Surg Eur. 2022,
47: 1064–70.
55.
YazdanshenasHNaeeniAFAshouriAWashingtonER 3rdShamieANAzariK.Treatment and post-surgery functional outcome of spaghetti wrist. J Hand Microsurg. 2016,
8: 127–33.
56.
YiiWUrbanMElliotD.A prospective study of flexor tendon repair in zone 5. J Hand Surg Br. 1998,
23: 642–8.
57.
ZhouXLiXRQingJJiaXFChenJ.Outcomes of the six-strand M-Tang repair for zone 2 primary flexor tendon repair in 54 fingers. J Hand Surg Eur. 2017,
42: 462–8.
58.
ZuoKJSaggafMvon SchroederHPBinhammerP.Outcomes of secondary combined proximal interphalangeal joint release and zone II flexor tenolysis. Hand (N Y). 2020,
15: 502–8.
59.
ZhouYLYangQQYanYYZhuCZhangLTangJB.Localized delivery of miRNAs targets cyclooxygenases and reduces flexor tendon adhesions. Acta Biomater. 2018,
70: 237–48.
