Barbed versus smooth poly- propylene three-loop pulley sutures for repair of canine gastrocnemius tendon

Summary

Objective: To compare the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and load to 1 and 3 mm gap formation of smooth (3-metric) and knotless barbed (4-metric) polypropylene sutures placed in a three-loop pulley pattern for canine gastrocnemius tendon repair.

Study design: In vitro.

Sample size: Thirty-three paired bonetendon units with one of each pair assigned to each suture type. Barbed suture size was based on previously published materials testing results.

Methods: Each unit was placed in a servohydraulic testing machine and tested under single cycle tensile loading until repair failure.

Results: There was a significantly higher UTS for smooth polypropylene compared to the barbed polypropylene repairs. The loads resulting in 1 and 3 mm gaps for the barbed repairs were consistently significantly less than the corresponding smooth polypropylene repair values.

Conclusion: The knotted smooth polypropylene repair was consistently stronger than the knotless barbed polypropylene repair when placed in a three-loop pulley pattern for gastrocnemius repair.

Clinical significance: Knotless barbed polypropylene suture should not be considered equivalent to knotted smooth polypropylene of comparable tensile strength when placed in a three-loop pulley pattern for canine gastrocnemius tendon repair. The low failure loads of the barbed repair are probably due to failure of the barbs to anchor consistently throughout the tendon in the knotless configuration.

Keywords

Barbed suture - tensile testing - polypropylene - ultimate tensile strength

• References

• 1 Jopp I, Reese S. Morphological and biomechanical studies on the common calcaneal tendon in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 119-124.
• 2 Corr SA, Draffan D, Kulendra E. et al. Retrospective study of Achilles mechanism disruption in 45 dogs. Vet Rec 2010; 167: 407-411.
• 3 Gilbert PJ, Shmon CL, Linn KA. et al. Macroscopic and microvascular blood supply of the canine common calcaneal tendon. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 81-86.
• 4 Reinke J, Mughannam A, Owens J. Avulsion of the gastrocnemius tendon in 11 dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1993; 29: 410-418.
• 5 Gelberman RH, Boyer MI, Brodt MD. et al. The effect of gap formation at the repair site on the strength and excursion of intrasynovial flexor tendons. An experimental study on the early stages of tendon-healing in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81: 975-982.
• 6 Dueland R, Quenin J. Triceps tenotomy: biomechanical assessment of healing strength. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1980; 16: 507-512.
• 7 Carmichael S, Marshall W. Tarsus and Metatarsus. In: Tobias KM, Johnston SA. editors. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. St Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2012: 1023-1026.
• 8 Lister S, Renberg W, Roush J. Efficacy of immobilization of the tarsal joint to alleviate strain on the common calcaneal tendon in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2009; 70: 134-140.
• 9 Gelberman RH, Menon J, Gonsalves M. et al. The effects of mobilization on the vascularization of healing flexor tendons in dogs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980; 153: 283-289.
• 10 Tomlinson J, Moore R. Locking loop tendon suture use in repair of 5 calcanean tendons. Vet Surg 1982; 11: 105-109.
• 11 Moores A, Comerford E, Tarlton J. et al. Biomechanical and clinical evaluation of a modified 3-loop pulley suture pattern for reattachment of canine tendons to bone. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 391-397.
• 12 Moores A, Owen M, Tarlton J. The three-loop pulley suture versus two locking-loop sutures for the repair of canine achilles tendons. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 131-137.
• 13 Berg RJ, Egger EL. In vitro comparison of the 3 loop pulley and locking loop suture patterns for repair of canine weightbearing tendons and collateral ligaments. Vet Surg 1986; 15: 107-110.
• 14 Gall T, Santoni B, Egger E. et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of polypropylene mesh, modified three-loop pulley suture pattern, and a combination for repair of distal canine achilles' tendon injuries. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 845-851.
• 15 Greenberg J. The use of barbed sutures in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2010; 3: 82-91.
• 16 Kim JC, Lee YK, Lim BS. et al. Comparison of tensile and knot security properties of surgical sutures. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007; 18: 2363-2369.
• 17 Rashid R, Sartori M, White L. et al. Breaking strength of barbed polypropylene sutures: rater-blinded, controlled comparison with nonbarbed sutures of various calibers. Arch Dermatol 2007; 143: 869-872.
• 18 Villa M, White L, Alam M. et al. Barbed sutures: a review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121: 102-108e.
• 19 Parikh P, Davison S, Higgins J. Barbed suture tenorrhaphy: an ex vivo biomechanical analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 1551-1558.
• 20 Ehrhart NP, Kaminskaya K, Miller JA. et al. In vivo assessment of absorbable knotless barbed suture for single layer gastrotomy and enterotomy closure. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 210-216.
• 21 Arbaugh M, Case JB, Monnet E. Biomechanical comparison of glycomer 631 and glycomer 631 knotless for use in canine incisional gastropexy. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 205-209.
• 22 Nelson BB, Hassel DM. In vitro comparison of V-Loc™ versus Biosyn™ in a one-layer end-to-end anastomosis of equine jejunum. Vet Surg 2014; 43: 80-84.
• 23 Ingle NP, King MW. Optimizing the tissue anchoring performance of barbed sutures in skin and tendon tissues. J Biomech 2010; 43: 302-309.
• 24 Everett E, Barrett JG, Morelli J. et al. Biomechanical testing of a novel suture pattern for repair of equine tendon lacerations. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 278-285.
• 25 Phelps HA, Ramos V, Shires PK. et al. The effect of measurement method on static weight distribution to all legs in dogs using the Quadruped Biofeedback System. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20: 108-112.
• 26 Rumph PF, Lander JE, Kincaid SA. et al. Ground reaction force profiles from force platform gait analyses of clinically normal mesomorphic dogs at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55: 756-761.
• 27 Budsberg S, Rytz U, Johnston S. Effects of acceleration on ground reaction forces collected in healthy dogs at a trot. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1999; 12: 15-19.
• 28 Helling ER, Okpaku A, Wang PT. et al. Complications of facial suspension sutures. Aesthet Surg J 2007; 27: 155-161.
• 29 Spah CE, Elkins AD, Wehrenberg A. et al. Evaluation of two novel self-anchoring barbed sutures in a prophylactic laparoscopic gastropexy compared with intracorporeal tied knots. Vet Surg 2013; 42: 932-942.
• 30 Kanz BN, Morris RP, Lewis T. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a knotless barbed suture repair in a human achilles tendon rupture model. Foot Ankle Spec 2014; 7: 176-181.