Secondary repair of flexor tendon injuries remains a challenging procedure for hand surgeons. Usually, secondary reconstruction should be performed by a staged approach. Two-stage surgical reconstruction of the flexor tendons by the Hunter technique is the salvage option in case of a severely damaged fibro-osseous canal or neglected flexor tendon injury.

We report the results of staged flexor tendon reconstruction in 10 patients (10 fingers) with neglected or failed primary repair of flexor tendon injuries in zone II.

Materials and Methods:
Between 2012-2016, patients who underwent two-stage tendon reconstruction due to flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) sectioning or tearing in zone II with destruction of flexor pulleys and extensive scarring in the flexor tendon bed were included in the study.

Ten patients included to study with a mean follow-up of 34 months (range 12-70 months) and the results were assessed by clinical examination and questionnaire. According to the Strickland score, one (20%) of the results were excellent, five (50%) were good, two (20%) were fair and two (20%) were poor. After the second stage, good to excellent results were achieved in 60% of patients, one patient needed graft tenolysis. These results were similar to the subjective scores given by the patients, four of whom complained of functional problems in daily life at follow-up. There was no complication after the first stage. But after the second stage, there was one bowstringing and one adhesion that require tenolysis.

Hunter technique is still the reference procedure for the reconstruction of flexor tendons. The results of our study showed that two-stage tendon reconstruction which is applied in patients with tendon sheath disruption as a result of acute or delayed tendon injuries which are not possible for primary repair is reliable and satisfactory.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
100% Article relates to my practice (12/12)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/12)
0% Undecided (0/12)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

33% Yes (4/12)
58% No (7/12)
8% Undecided (1/12)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/12)
100% No (12/12)
0% Undecided (0/12)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/12)
0% Level 2 (0/12)
41% Level 3 (5/12)
50% Level 4 (6/12)
8% Level 5 (1/12)