Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorUludag, Abuzer
dc.contributor.authorTosun, Haci Bayram
dc.contributor.authorCelik, Suat
dc.contributor.authorSerbest, Sancar
dc.contributor.authorKayalar, Murat
dc.contributor.authorAytac, Gunes
dc.contributor.authorSindel, Muzaffer
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-14T18:10:45Z
dc.date.available2021-01-14T18:10:45Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationBu makale açık erişimli değildir.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0936-8051
dc.identifier.issn1434-3916
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03384-9
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12587/12758
dc.descriptionaytac, gunes/0000-0003-4902-2844en_US
dc.descriptionWOS:000522643800019en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 32130480en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose To compare five different repair techniques for extensor tendon zone III modified Kessler (MK), double-modified Kessler (DMK), modified Kessler epitendinous (MKE), double-modified Kessler epitendinous (DMKE), and running-interlocking horizontal mattress (RIHM) in terms of shortening, stiffness, gap formation, and ultimate load to failure. Methods A total of 35 human cadaver fingers were randomly assigned to five suture techniques with 7 fingers each and were tested under dynamic and static loading conditions. Results DMK was found to be superior over MK in terms of ultimate load to failure (36 N vs. 24 N, respectively), shortening (1.75 vs. 2.20 mm, respectively) and gap formation. However, these two methods had similar characteristics in terms of stiffness. The addition of epitendinous sutures to the repair methods resulted in approximately 40% increase in ultimate load to failure, whereas epitendinous sutures had no effect on shortening. DMKE was found to be superior over MKE in terms of shortening (1.77 vs. 2.22 mm, respectively). However, these two methods had similar characteristics in terms of mean ultimate load to failure and stiffness. RIHM was found to be superior over the other four methods in terms of ultimate load to failure (89 N), stiffness, and shortening (0.75 mm). Conclusion RIHM was found to be stronger and more durable for extensor tendon zone III than the other techniques in terms of ultimate load to failure and stiffness.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSPRINGERen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1007/s00402-020-03384-9en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectHand injuryen_US
dc.subjectExtansoren_US
dc.subjectTendon repairen_US
dc.subjectZone 3en_US
dc.subjectSutureen_US
dc.subjectBiomechanicen_US
dc.titleComparison of various tendon repair techniques in extansor zone 3 injuries: an experimental biomechanical cadaver studyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentKKÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume140en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage583en_US
dc.identifier.endpage590en_US
dc.relation.journalARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERYen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster