Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1766094
Biomechanical Comparison of Four- versus Six-Strand Transosseous Suture Repair for Patellar Tendon Rupture
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/jks/202403/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-s-0043-1766094_22oct0146oa-1.jpg)
Abstract
Background Surgical repair is indicated for patellar tendon ruptures that result in loss of knee extensor mechanism function. However, biomechanical studies report conflicting results when comparing transosseous suture versus suture anchor repair techniques. This discrepancy may be due to inconsistencies in experimental design as these studies use various numbers of suture strands. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to compare the ultimate load of four- versus six-strand transosseous suture repair. Secondary objectives are to compare gap formation after cyclical loading and mode of failure.
Methods Six pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric specimen were randomly allocated to either four- or six-strand transosseous suture repair. Specimen underwent preconditioning cyclical loading and then load to failure.
Results The six-strand repair had a significantly higher maximum load to failure compared with the four-strand repair (mean difference = 319.3 N [57.9%], p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in gap length after cyclical loading or at max load. There were no significant differences in mode of failure.
Conclusion Utilizing a six-stand transosseous patella tendon repair construct with one additional suture increases overall construct strength by over 50% compared with a four-strand construct.
Publication History
Received: 24 October 2022
Accepted: 12 February 2023
Article published online:
06 April 2023
© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Clayton RA, Court-Brown CM. The epidemiology of musculoskeletal tendinous and ligamentous injuries. Injury 2008; 39 (12) 1338-1344
- 2 Matava MJ. Patellar tendon ruptures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1996; 4 (06) 287-296
- 3 Canale ST, Azar FM, Beaty JH, Campbell WC. Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics. 13th ed.. Vol. 4. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, Inc.; 2017
- 4 Plesser S, Keilani M, Vekszler G. et al. Clinical outcomes after treatment of quadriceps tendon ruptures show equal results independent of suture anchor or transosseus repair technique used - a pilot study. PLoS One 2018; 13 (03) e0194376
- 5 Brossard P, Le Roux G, Vasse B. Orthopedics, Traumatology Society of Western France (SOO). Acute quadriceps tendon rupture repaired by suture anchors: outcomes at 7 years' follow-up in 25 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017; 103 (04) 597-601
- 6 Bushnell BD, Byram IR, Weinhold PS, Creighton RA. The use of suture anchors in repair of the ruptured patellar tendon: a biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (09) 1492-1499
- 7 Ettinger M, Dratzidis A, Hurschler C. et al. Biomechanical properties of suture anchor repair compared with transosseous sutures in patellar tendon ruptures: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (11) 2540-2544
- 8 Ode GE, Piasecki DP, Habet NA, Peindl RD. Cortical button fixation: a better patellar tendon repair?. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (10) 2622-2628
- 9 Sherman SL, Black B, Mooberry MA. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of suture anchor versus transosseous tunnel patellar tendon repair techniques. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (08) 825-832
- 10 Rothfeld A, Pawlak A, Liebler SAH, Morris M, Paci JM. Patellar tendon repair augmentation with a knotless suture anchor internal brace: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (05) 1199-1204
- 11 Schliemann B, Grüneweller N, Yao D. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of different surgical techniques for treating patellar tendon ruptures. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (08) 1717-1723
- 12 Yen CY, Tsai YJ, Hsiao CK, Kao FC, Tu YK. Biomechanical evaluation of patellar tendon repair using Krackow suture technique. Biomed Eng Online 2019; 18 (01) 64
- 13 Krushinski EM, Parks BG, Hinton RY. Gap formation in transpatellar patellar tendon repair: pretensioning Krackow sutures versus standard repair in a cadaver model. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (01) 171-175
- 14 Mihalko WM, Vance M, Fineberg MJ. Patellar tendon repair with hamstring autograft: a cadaveric analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2010; 25 (04) 348-351
- 15 Black JC, Ricci WM, Gardner MJ. et al. Novel augmentation technique for patellar tendon repair improves strength and decreases gap formation: a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (12) 2611-2618
- 16 Nisell R. Mechanics of the knee. A study of joint and muscle load with clinical applications. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1985; 216: 1-42
- 17 Zernicke RF, Garhammer J, Jobe FW. Human patellar-tendon rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977; 59 (02) 179-183
- 18 Gelberman RH, Boyer MI, Brodt MD, Winters SC, Silva MJ. 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 (07) 975-982
- 19 Seradge H. Elongation of the repair configuration following flexor tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am 1983; 8 (02) 182-185
- 20 Zhao C, Amadio PC, Tanaka T. et al. Effect of gap size on gliding resistance after flexor tendon repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (11) 2482-2488
- 21 Carmont MR, Kuiper JH, Grävare Silbernagel K, Karlsson J, Nilsson-Helander K. Tendon end separation with loading in an Achilles tendon repair model: comparison of non-absorbable vs. absorbable sutures. J Exp Orthop 2017; 4 (01) 26
- 22 Ravalin RV, Mazzocca AD, Grady-Benson JC, Nissen CW, Adams DJ. Biomechanical comparison of patellar tendon repairs in a cadaver model: an evaluation of gap formation at the repair site with cyclic loading. Am J Sports Med 2002; 30 (04) 469-473
- 23 Lin TW, Cardenas L, Soslowsky LJ. Biomechanics of tendon injury and repair. J Biomech 2004; 37 (06) 865-877