With tendon transfers or reconstructions, the tenorrhaphy must be strong enough to withstand early mobilization in the immediate postoperative period to decrease adhesion formation and optimize functional outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the strength, bulk, and gliding resistance of four common tendon-to-tendon attachment constructs. A biomechanical study was performed utilizing 80 cadaveric tendons to compare four common tendon tenorrhaphy constructs: the end-weave (EW); Pulvertaft (PT); single-pass, side-to-side (SP-STS); and simple, side-to-side (STS) attachments. The primary outcome measures investigated included tenorrhaphy morphology, gliding resistance, tensile strength, and deformation at failure of the different constructs. A total of 40 tendon pairs, 10 per repair group, were constructed, biomechanically evaluated, and outcomes were compared. There were no significant differences in the cross-sectional area of the native tendon (p = 0.334) or repair site (p = 0.564) and no difference in the added bulk of the repair (p = 0.663) between the repair groups. Gliding resistance was not significantly different between the repair groups (p = 0.110). The SP-STS repair was significantly stronger (p <  0.001), stiffer (p <  0.001), and exhibited less displacement at peak load (p = 0.004), and greater force generation at 1 cm of displacement (p = 0.002) compared to the other constructs. The SP-STS is significantly stronger, without a significant difference in bulk and gliding resistance compared to the PT, EW, STS repairs. SP-STS can be utilized in tendon transfers and reconstructions to safely permit early active mobilization.





Polls results
1

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

NO change
BIG change
72% Article relates to my practice (21/29)
13% Article does not relate to my practice (4/29)
13% Undecided (4/29)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

51% Yes (15/29)
17% No (5/29)
31% Undecided (9/29)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

3% Yes (1/29)
75% No (22/29)
20% Undecided (6/29)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

6% Level 1 (2/29)
13% Level 2 (4/29)
37% Level 3 (11/29)
34% Level 4 (10/29)
6% Level 5 (2/29)