Primary flexor tendons repair in zone 2: Current trends with GEMMSOR survey results

Influence of the direction of suture strands on the tensile strength after flexor tendon repairs

We assessed the influence of different directions of suture strands using the double Tsuge repair on the resistance to gap formation and mode of failure. In total, 25 porcine flexor digitorum profundus tendons were split into two groups. One group was repaired using a conventional double Tsuge suture created by two bands of looped suture placed longitudinally parallel (parallel method), and the other group was repaired using a new technique comprising two bands of looped suture placed in a crossed fashion in the anterior and posterior half of the tendon (cruciate method). The repaired tendons were subjected to linear, non-cyclic load-to-failure tensile testing. The cruciate method had a significantly higher mean load at a 2-mm gap tensile load (29.7 N [SD, 8.3]) than the parallel method (21.6 N [SD, 4.9]) and failed significantly more often due to suture pull-out. The direction of a core suture and its location within the tendon affect both gap resistance and the mode of failure of repair when using the double Tsuge suture technique, with a cruciate configuration achieving a greater gap resistance than a parallel one.

A Biomechanical Comparison of Gliding Resistance between Modified Lim Tsai and Asymmetric Tendon Repair Techniques in Zone II Flexor Tendon Repairs

Background: Early active motion protocols have shown better functional outcomes in zone II flexor tendon lacerations. Different techniques of tendon repair have different effects on gliding resistance, which can impact tendon excursion and adhesion formation. For successful initiation of early active mobilisation, the repair technique should have high breaking strength and low gliding resistance. Previous studies have shown the Modified Lim-Tsai technique demonstrates these characteristics. The Asymmetric repair has also shown superior ultimate tensile strength. This study aims to compare the gliding resistance between the two techniques. Methods: FDP tendons from ten fresh frozen cadaveric fingers were randomly divided into two groups, transected completely distal to the sheath of the A2 pulley and repaired using either the Modified Lim-Tsai or Asymmetric technique. The core repair was performed with Supramid 4-0 looped sutures and circumferential epitendinous sutures were done with nylon monofilament Prolene 6-0 sutures. The gliding resistance and ultimate tensile strength were then tested. Results: The gliding resistance of the Asymmetric and Modified Lim-Tsai repair techniques were 0.2 and 0.95 N respectively. This difference was significant (p = 0.008). The Modified Lim-Tsai technique had a higher ultimate tensile strength and load to 2 mm gap formation, though this was not significant. Conclusions: Gliding resistance of the Asymmetric repair is significantly less than that of Modified Lim-Tsai. Ultimate tensile strength and load to 2 mm gap formation are comparable.

Rehabilitation following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand

BACKGROUND

Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. Rehabilitation often includes a combination of an exercise regimen and an orthosis, plus other rehabilitation treatments, usually delivered together. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different rehabilitation interventions after surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, two additional databases and two international trials registries, unrestricted by language. The last date of searches was 11 August 2020. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with no intervention, control, placebo, or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who have had surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. Trials comparing different mobilisation regimens either with another mobilisation regimen or with a control were the main comparisons of interest. Our main outcomes of interest were patient-reported function, active range of motion of the fingers, and number of participants experiencing an adverse event.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs and one quasi-RCT, with a total of 1108 participants, mainly adults. Overall, the participants were aged between 7 and 72 years, and 74% were male. Studies mainly focused on flexor tendon injuries in zone II. The 17 studies were heterogeneous with respect to the types of rehabilitation treatments provided, intensity, duration of treatment and the treatment setting. Each trial tested one of 14 comparisons, eight of which were of different exercise regimens. The other trials examined the timing of return to unrestricted functional activities after surgery (one study); the use of external devices applied to the participant to facilitate mobilisation, such as an exoskeleton (one study) or continuous passive motion device (one study); modalities such as laser therapy (two studies) or ultrasound therapy (one study); and a motor imagery treatment (one study). No trials tested different types of orthoses; different orthosis wearing regimens, including duration; different timings for commencing mobilisation; different types of scar management; or different timings for commencing strengthening. Trials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. Data pooling was limited to tendon rupture data in a three trial comparison. We rated the evidence available for all reported outcomes of all comparisons as very low-certainty evidence, which means that we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect. We present the findings from three exercise regimen comparisons, as these are commonly used in clinical current practice. Early active flexion plus controlled passive exercise regimen versus early controlled passive exercise regimen (modified Kleinert protocol) was compared in one trial of 53 participants with mainly zone II flexor tendon repairs. There is very low-certainty evidence of no clinically important difference between the two groups in patient-rated function or active finger range of motion at 6 or 12 months follow-up. There is very low-certainty evidence of little between-group difference in adverse events: there were 15 overall. All three tendon ruptures underwent secondary surgery. An active exercise regimen versus an immobilisation regimen for three weeks was compared in one trial reporting data for 84 participants with zone II flexor tendon repairs. The trial did not report on self-rated function, on range of movement during three to six months or numbers of participants experiencing adverse events. The very low-certainty evidence for poor (under one-quarter that of normal) range of finger movement at one to three years follow-up means we are uncertain of the finding of zero cases in the active group versus seven cases in the immobilisation regimen. The same uncertainty applies to the finding of little difference between the two groups in adverse events (5 tendon ruptures in the active group versus 10 probable scar adhesion in the immobilisation group) indicated for surgery. Place and hold exercise regimen performed within an orthosis versus a controlled passive regimen using rubber band traction was compared in three heterogeneous trials, which reported data for a maximum of 194 participants, with mainly zone II flexor tendon repairs. The trials did not report on range of movement during three to six months, or numbers of participants experiencing adverse events. There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in self-rated function using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) functional assessment between the two groups at six months (one trial) or at 12 months (one trial). There is very low-certainty evidence from one trial of greater active finger range of motion at 12 months after place and hold. Secondary surgery data were not available; however, all seven recorded tendon ruptures would have required surgery. All the evidence for the other five exercise comparisons as well as those of the other six comparisons made by the included studies was incomplete and, where available, of very low-certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of evidence from RCTs on most of the rehabilitation interventions used following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. The limited and very low-certainty evidence for all 14 comparisons examined in the 17 included studies means that we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect for all outcomes for which data were available for these comparisons. The dearth of evidence identified in this review points to the urgent need for sufficiently powered RCTs that examine key questions relating to the rehabilitation of these injuries. A consensus approach identifying these and establishing minimum study conduct and reporting criteria will be valuable. Our suggestions for future research are detailed in the review.

Flexor digitorum profundus with or without flexor digitorum superficialis tendon repair in acute Zone 2B injuries

A total of 53 patients with complete cuts of two flexor tendons in Zone 2B treated over a 9-year period was reviewed. Twenty-three patients (28 fingers) had only flexor digitorum profundus repair, while 30 patients (36 fingers) had both flexor digitorum profundus and flexor digitorum superficialis repairs, with a mean follow-up of 21 months (range 12-84). The decision to repair the flexor digitorum superficialis was made according to intraoperative judgement of ease of repair and gliding of the flexor digitorum profundus tendon. Two groups of patients showed no significant differences in total range of active or passive digital motion and power grip percentage to the contralateral hand. However, the values of power grip were statistically superior in the patients with both tendons repaired. The patients after flexor digitorum profundus-only repairs showed significantly greater but still mild flexion contracture (mean 20 °) of the operated digits. The Tang gradings were the same with 89% good and excellent rates in both groups. The conclusion is that although repair of both flexor digitorum profundus and flexor digitorum superficialis tendons is slightly more preferable based on increased grip strength, the repair of the flexor digitorum superficialis together with flexor digitorum profundus is not mandatory. Whether or not to repair flexor digitorum superficialis is an intraoperative decision based on the ease of gliding of the repaired tendon(s).Level of evidence: III.

Improving Strength and Quality of Epitendinous Repairs

Background: Epitendinous sutures not only join the 2 severed tendon edges but also supply strength and support to the repair. Multiple techniques have been described, but none of them include another thread of suture. This could potentially increase the strength of the repair without affecting gliding. Methods: Caprine tendons were harvested, transected, and sutured with 6-0 Prolene. Four groups were created: single thread running (SR), single thread locking (SL), double thread running (DR), and double thread locking (DL). An Instron 5542 was used to pull the repaired tendons apart, and the energy at the break was calculated (gf/mm). For gliding resistance, we harvested a human A2 pulley. A pre- and postrepair value was obtained, and a ratio was elaborated. A single-factor analysis of variance and independent sample t tests were performed. Results: The SR group had a mean energy at break of 9339.71 ± 1630.212 gf/mm; the SL group, 9629.96 ± 1476.45 gf/mm; and the DR group, 9600.221 ± 976.087 gf/mm, with no statistical significance. The DL group was significantly higher at 14 740.664 ± 2596.586 gf/mm (P < .05). When comparing SR with DL for gliding, SR had less than half of the resistance than DL (0.018 ± 0.004 and 0.049 ± 0.015 N/mm, respectively), with statistical significance (P < .05). Conclusion: Using a single suture thread for running epitendinous repair is no different than locking with a single thread or using an extra thread in a running fashion. Performing a double suture thread with a locking technique is significantly stronger than the previously mentioned repairs, with the disadvantage of more resistance at the pulley.

Tenolysis rate after zone 2 flexor tendon repairs

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the tenolysis rates of zone 2 flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) with flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS) tendon repairs using four-strand technique and early passive motion exercises.

Patients and methods

In this retrospective study, we performed zone 2 flexor tendon repairs in 149 patients (117 males, 32 females, mean age 33.3±12.9 years; range, 13 to 72 years) (82 right and 67 left hands) between November 2014 and January 2019. A total of 194 FDP and FDS tendons were repaired primarily by using modified Kessler and Bunnell methods. Patients underwent pure passive motion protocols after surgery according to modified Duran’s protocol. No active flexion components were added until postoperative fourth week.

Results

Twenty-three out of 149 patients and 28 out of 194 fingers (14.43%) had tenolysis. There was no significant relationship between the number of operated fingers, gender, and tenolysis rate (p=0.836, p=0.584, respectively).

Conclusion

The repair of the FDP with FDS tendon increases the tenolysis rate in zone 2. The tenolysis rate does not change according to the number or distribution of injured fingers and gender of the patient.

[Primary treatment of flexor tendon injuries]

The treatment of flexor tendon injuries is still challenging, especially in the region of the narrow annular ligaments and tendon sheaths of the 3‑segment fingers and the thumb (zone 2). In the course of time, the primary suture of the flexor tendons has prevailed over traditional recommendations for a secondary tendon replacement after healing of the wound. Improvements regarding suture techniques and materials and, above all the follow-up treatment, have been crucial for better results and remarkable changes in flexor tendon surgery. The suture techniques are determined by the location of the injury but the experience and preferences of the surgeon are also important. Although no technique was found to be optimal, published research and clinical experiences provide important indications for the presumption of successful treatment. To achieve this an early functionally active protocol should be implemented. The tendon suture should enable this by having a high primary strength and therefore at least a 4-strand core suture technique with a ring suture should be given preference. Further important prerequisites for success are the undisturbed gliding of the repaired tendon in its "bed" paying special attention to the annular ligaments and preservation of the blood supply to the tendons.

The evidence-base for the management of flexor tendon injuries of the hand: Review

•

There is no consensus on the optimal flexor tendon repair technique at each anatomical flexor zone.

•

There is paucity of high quality evidence.

•

Heterogenous study designs limit inter-study comparisons.

•

Patient reported outcome measures are crucial but there is a perennial need for robust disease-specific tools to be utilised.

Effect of different positions of splinting on flexor tendon relaxation: a cadaver study

We performed a cadaver study to evaluate how six different static heat-moulded splints affect flexor tendon relaxation. Each splint positioned the wrist and metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints in different positions. We evaluated the tendon relaxation in 12 fresh adult cadaver forearms by measuring the flexor tendon displacement between two solid markers for each splint. The wrist position ranged from 30° flexion to 45° extension and the MCP joints from 30° to 60° flexion. For each splint, tendon relaxation was achieved relative to the neutral reference position. Tendon relaxation was greatest when the MCP joints were positioned in 60° flexion. We also noted the persistence of tendon relaxation when the wrist was positioned in extension (30° or 45°) as long as MCP joint flexion was maintained (30° or 60°). We conclude that the wrist extension with the MCP joints flexion may optimize tendon relaxation during immobilization after flexor tendon repairs.