Side-to-Side Tendon Coaptation Yields Greater Load to Failure and Stiffness Than Pulvertaft Weave: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Biomechanical Studies.

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
HAND Pub Date : 2025-08-20 DOI:10.1177/15589447251360264
Casey Imbergamo, Calvin Wang, Daniel Devine, Aviram M Giladi, Kenneth R Means
{"title":"Side-to-Side Tendon Coaptation Yields Greater Load to Failure and Stiffness Than Pulvertaft Weave: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Biomechanical Studies.","authors":"Casey Imbergamo, Calvin Wang, Daniel Devine, Aviram M Giladi, Kenneth R Means","doi":"10.1177/15589447251360264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Two of the most prevalent techniques for tendon transfer are Pulvertaft weave (PTW) and side-to-side (STS) constructs. Our purpose was to compare pooled results from reported biomechanical properties of these approaches by a meta-analysis. Our null hypothesis was there are no significant differences in load to failure (LTF), initial construct stiffness, or cross-sectional area (CSA) between these techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify candidate studies. We included studies with direct LTF comparisons of PTW and STS constructs. We performed a meta-analysis of pooled data comparing the 2 techniques for initial construct LTF (N), stiffness (N/mm), and CSA (mm<sup>2</sup>).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies with a total of 235 tested human or porcine tendon reconstruction constructs (107 PTW, 128 STS) met our inclusion criteria. Eight studies reported initial construct LTF, with weighted mean values of 103 (±36) and 198 (±61) N for the PTW and STS groups, respectively (<i>P</i> < .05). Four studies reported initial construct stiffness, with weighted mean values of 16 (±4) and 34 (±16) N/mm for the PTW and STS groups, respectively (<i>P</i> < .05). Five studies evaluated initial transfer bulk as measured by CSA, with weighted mean values of 28 (±14) and 29 (±13) mm<sup>2</sup> for the PTW and STS groups, respectively (<i>P</i> > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-analysis demonstrated significant increased initial construct LTF and stiffness with STS tendon coaptation as compared with PTW. We found no difference for initial CSA between the 2 techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":12902,"journal":{"name":"HAND","volume":" ","pages":"15589447251360264"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12367711/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HAND","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447251360264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Two of the most prevalent techniques for tendon transfer are Pulvertaft weave (PTW) and side-to-side (STS) constructs. Our purpose was to compare pooled results from reported biomechanical properties of these approaches by a meta-analysis. Our null hypothesis was there are no significant differences in load to failure (LTF), initial construct stiffness, or cross-sectional area (CSA) between these techniques.

Methods: We performed a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify candidate studies. We included studies with direct LTF comparisons of PTW and STS constructs. We performed a meta-analysis of pooled data comparing the 2 techniques for initial construct LTF (N), stiffness (N/mm), and CSA (mm2).

Results: Eight studies with a total of 235 tested human or porcine tendon reconstruction constructs (107 PTW, 128 STS) met our inclusion criteria. Eight studies reported initial construct LTF, with weighted mean values of 103 (±36) and 198 (±61) N for the PTW and STS groups, respectively (P < .05). Four studies reported initial construct stiffness, with weighted mean values of 16 (±4) and 34 (±16) N/mm for the PTW and STS groups, respectively (P < .05). Five studies evaluated initial transfer bulk as measured by CSA, with weighted mean values of 28 (±14) and 29 (±13) mm2 for the PTW and STS groups, respectively (P > .05).

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrated significant increased initial construct LTF and stiffness with STS tendon coaptation as compared with PTW. We found no difference for initial CSA between the 2 techniques.

侧对侧肌腱接合比粉末状编织产生更大的失效和刚度负荷:生物力学研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:两种最流行的肌腱转移技术是粉状编织(PTW)和侧对侧(STS)构造。我们的目的是通过荟萃分析比较这些方法的生物力学特性的汇总结果。我们的原假设是,在这些技术之间,载荷失效(LTF)、初始结构刚度或横截面积(CSA)没有显著差异。方法:我们按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行了系统评价,以确定候选研究。我们纳入了直接比较PTW和STS结构的LTF的研究。我们对汇总数据进行了荟萃分析,比较了两种技术的初始结构LTF (N)、刚度(N/mm)和CSA (mm2)。结果:8项研究共有235个测试的人或猪肌腱重建结构(107个PTW, 128个STS)符合我们的纳入标准。8项研究报告了初始构建LTF, PTW组和STS组的加权平均值分别为103(±36)和198(±61)N (P < 0.05)。4项研究报告了PTW组和STS组的初始构体刚度,加权平均值分别为16(±4)和34(±16)N/mm (P < 0.05)。5项研究评估了CSA测量的初始转移体积,PTW组和STS组的加权平均值分别为28(±14)和29(±13)mm2 (P >.05)。结论:我们的荟萃分析显示,与PTW相比,STS肌腱配合显著增加了初始构建LTF和刚度。我们发现两种技术的初始CSA没有差异。
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
HAND
HAND Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
209
期刊介绍: HAND is the official journal of the American Association for Hand Surgery and is a peer-reviewed journal featuring articles written by clinicians worldwide presenting current research and clinical work in the field of hand surgery. It features articles related to all aspects of hand and upper extremity surgery and the post operative care and rehabilitation of the hand.
×
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