<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.f3b1fba60ec7970c.css">

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

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.authorDemir, Teyfik
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-09T21:46:50Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentYüksek İhtisas Üniversitesi
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.
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00402-020-03384-9
dc.identifier.endpage590
dc.identifier.issn0936-8051
dc.identifier.issn1434-3916
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-4902-2844
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-6500-7260
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-6352-8302
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-7422-1891
dc.identifier.pmid32130480
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85081036218
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage583
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03384-9
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12794/3425
dc.identifier.volume140
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000522643800019
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.indekslendigikaynak.digerScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.relation.ispartofArchives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.relation.sdgGoal-03: Good Health and Well-Being
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260922
dc.subjectHand Injury
dc.subjectExtansor
dc.subjectTendon Repair
dc.subjectZone 3
dc.subjectSuture
dc.subjectBiomechanic
dc.titleComparison of various tendon repair techniques in extansor zone 3 injuries: an experimental biomechanical cadaver study
dc.typeArticle

Files