Comparison of various tendon repair techniques in extansor zone 3 injuries: an experimental biomechanical cadaver study

Basit Öğe Kaydı
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.departmentKKÜ
dc.descriptionaytac, gunes/0000-0003-4902-2844
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.identifier.citationBu makale açık erişimli değildir.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00402-020-03384-9
dc.identifier.endpage590en_US
dc.identifier.issn0936-8051
dc.identifier.issn1434-3916
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid32130480
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85081036218
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage583en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03384-9
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12587/12758
dc.identifier.volume140en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000522643800019
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSPRINGERen_US
dc.relation.ispartofARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_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.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
[ X ]
İsim:
s00402-020-03384-9.pdf
Boyut:
1.21 MB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Açıklama:
Tam metin/Full text
İndir

Koleksiyon

WOS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Makale Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu