Using half-hitch knots to uncouple surgical knot security and loop tautness.

4区 医学
Annals of translational medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-30 Epub Date: 2025-04-29 DOI:10.21037/atm-25-2
Thomas J O'Keefe, Louis A Perkins, Isabella Guajardo, Laura M Adams, Bard C Cosman, William D Ardill, Bruce M Potenza
{"title":"Using half-hitch knots to uncouple surgical knot security and loop tautness.","authors":"Thomas J O'Keefe, Louis A Perkins, Isabella Guajardo, Laura M Adams, Bard C Cosman, William D Ardill, Bruce M Potenza","doi":"10.21037/atm-25-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most surgeons tie half-hitch knots, but many are unfamiliar with the principles underlying their security leading to insecure knots. When presented with evidence regarding tying technique and knot security, we note a proclivity among surgeons towards resistance to change with rationalizations such as concerns regarding tissue strangulation with increasing knot security. We hypothesize that this concern is unfounded. The aim of this study was to identify whether the impact of loop tautness on knot security is mediated through the configuration of the knot.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six-throw knots were tied with 0 silk. The loop of the knot encompassed two brass rings and a piece of latex hose. Four knot types were tied and tested: non-taut and taut single post knots (SxSxSxSxSxS in Dinsmore notation), and non-taut and taut alternating post knots (SxSxS#S#S#S in Dinsmore notation). The latex hose was then removed from the loop and the brass rings were distracted on a tensiometer to assess knot security. The main outcome for the study was knot security, including maximum force resisted by each knot type to 1 and 2 mm slippage and ultimate failure defined by slippage to unraveling or breakage of the suture. Differences of means were tested with 2-sided <i>t</i>-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>By 1 mm slippage, the tautly tied alternating post knots were more secure than the single post knots, and the non-taut single post knots were less secure than all other configurations. By 2 mm slippage, the tautly tied alternating post knots were more secure than all other configurations and the non-taut alternating post knots were more secure than the tautly tied and non-taut single post knots. By ultimate failure, the tautly tied and non-taut alternating post knots were comparable and both more secure than both single post knots.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Surgeons can utilize single and alternating post throws to independently confer knot security and loop tautness and thereby tie the knot needed under a given set of circumstances.</p>","PeriodicalId":8216,"journal":{"name":"Annals of translational medicine","volume":"13 2","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12106118/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of translational medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-25-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Most surgeons tie half-hitch knots, but many are unfamiliar with the principles underlying their security leading to insecure knots. When presented with evidence regarding tying technique and knot security, we note a proclivity among surgeons towards resistance to change with rationalizations such as concerns regarding tissue strangulation with increasing knot security. We hypothesize that this concern is unfounded. The aim of this study was to identify whether the impact of loop tautness on knot security is mediated through the configuration of the knot.

Methods: Six-throw knots were tied with 0 silk. The loop of the knot encompassed two brass rings and a piece of latex hose. Four knot types were tied and tested: non-taut and taut single post knots (SxSxSxSxSxS in Dinsmore notation), and non-taut and taut alternating post knots (SxSxS#S#S#S in Dinsmore notation). The latex hose was then removed from the loop and the brass rings were distracted on a tensiometer to assess knot security. The main outcome for the study was knot security, including maximum force resisted by each knot type to 1 and 2 mm slippage and ultimate failure defined by slippage to unraveling or breakage of the suture. Differences of means were tested with 2-sided t-test.

Results: By 1 mm slippage, the tautly tied alternating post knots were more secure than the single post knots, and the non-taut single post knots were less secure than all other configurations. By 2 mm slippage, the tautly tied alternating post knots were more secure than all other configurations and the non-taut alternating post knots were more secure than the tautly tied and non-taut single post knots. By ultimate failure, the tautly tied and non-taut alternating post knots were comparable and both more secure than both single post knots.

Conclusions: Surgeons can utilize single and alternating post throws to independently confer knot security and loop tautness and thereby tie the knot needed under a given set of circumstances.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

使用半结来解开手术结的安全性和环紧度。
背景:大多数外科医生打半结,但许多人不熟悉他们的安全原则,导致不安全的结。当提供有关打结技术和打结安全性的证据时,我们注意到外科医生倾向于抵制改变,并将其合理化,例如担心组织绞杀与打结安全性的增加。我们假设这种担心是没有根据的。本研究的目的是确定环紧度对结安全的影响是否通过结的配置介导。方法:用0丝系结6针结。结的环包括两个黄铜环和一根乳胶软管。打结和测试了四种结类型:非拉紧和拉紧单桩结(Dinsmore符号中的SxSxSxSxSxS),非拉紧和拉紧交替桩结(Dinsmore符号中的SxSxS# s# s# S)。然后将乳胶软管从环上取下,并用张力计将黄铜环分散,以评估结的安全性。该研究的主要结果是结的安全性,包括每种结类型所承受的最大力到1和2毫米的滑移,以及由滑移定义的最终失效到缝线的解开或断裂。均数差异采用双侧t检验。结果:在滑移1 mm时,系紧的交替桩结比单桩结更安全,而非系紧的单桩结比所有其他配置更不安全。通过2毫米的滑移,紧系的交替桩结比所有其他配置更安全,非紧系的交替桩结比紧系和非紧系的单桩结更安全。通过最终失败,紧系和非紧系交替桩结具有可比性,并且都比单桩结更安全。结论:外科医生可以利用单次和交替后抛来独立地赋予结安全性和环紧度,从而在给定的情况下打结。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
769
期刊介绍: The Annals of Translational Medicine (Ann Transl Med; ATM; Print ISSN 2305-5839; Online ISSN 2305-5847) is an international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal featuring original and observational investigations in the broad fields of laboratory, clinical, and public health research, aiming to provide practical up-to-date information in significant research from all subspecialties of medicine and to broaden the readers’ vision and horizon from bench to bed and bed to bench. It is published quarterly (April 2013- Dec. 2013), monthly (Jan. 2014 - Feb. 2015), biweekly (March 2015-) and openly distributed worldwide. Annals of Translational Medicine is indexed in PubMed in Sept 2014 and in SCIE in 2018. Specific areas of interest include, but not limited to, multimodality therapy, epidemiology, biomarkers, imaging, biology, pathology, and technical advances related to medicine. Submissions describing preclinical research with potential for application to human disease, and studies describing research obtained from preliminary human experimentation with potential to further the understanding of biological mechanism underlying disease are encouraged. Also warmly welcome are studies describing public health research pertinent to clinic, disease diagnosis and prevention, or healthcare policy.
 With a focus on interdisciplinary academic cooperation, ATM aims to expedite the translation of scientific discovery into new or improved standards of management and health outcomes practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信