ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2023
A new 4-strand tendon repair technique in a rabbit Achilles tendon model: Is 4 better than 6?
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to present a new modification of the modified Kessler tendon repair technique and share results of an animal study scrutinizing mainly the biomechanical properties and comparing it to other techniques.
methodsEighteen New Zealand rabbits were used and divided into 3 groups: 1 experiment and 2 control groups. Four-strand modified Kessler and 6-strand Tang repairs were used for the control groups. The new modification was used in the experiment group. Two surgeries were conducted 8 weeks apart, repairing 1 Achilles tendon in the first, repairing the contralateral tendon and harvesting specimens in the second. The repair times were recorded. In addition, biomechanical tests were conducted to determine mechanical strength.
resultsThere was a statistically significant difference between the 3 groups in load-to-failure values for the strength after repair model, with the experiment group superior to the other 2 (P = .002; P < .05). Although there was a noticeable difference between the mean loadto- failure values of each group in the healing model, we could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference(P > .05). The new modification took significantly less time than the other 2 techniques (P = .001).
conclusionOur new modification was biomechanically stronger and faster than the other 2 techniques. The technique offers a new, suitable, practical option for human flexor tendon repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.