ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
Biomechanical Evaluation of Novel Tendon Coaptation Technique: A Potential Application for Tendon Transfers.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical performance and time to completion of the Pulvertaft weave technique, the CoNextions tendon repair system only, and a combination of single Pulvertaft weave with the CoNextions repair. Methods: A total of 22 cadaveric hands were dissected, and the extensor pollicis longus tendons were harvested and divided into the following three groups: (1) Pulvertaft weave, (2) Pulvertaft weave + CoNextions, and (3) CoNextions. Each sample underwent axial loading in a cyclical fashion, followed by ramp to failure. Metrics of interest were suture time, displacement, stiffness, ultimate failure load, and failure mechanism were recorded. Results: Time required to instrument each configuration was significantly different across all groups; CoNextions group was the fastest. For cyclic loading, no significant differences in elongation were detected between the groups. The displacement at ultimate failure load, on average, for the Pulvertaft (10.6 mm) and the Pulvertaft and CoNextions combination (10.2 mm) were not significantly different compared with CoNextions (6.5 mm). The stiffness during cyclic loading was similar between the Pulvertaft (38.8 N/mm) and the Pulvertaft and CoNextions combination (36.7 N/mm), and both were found to be significantly stiffer compared with the CoNextions (28.0 N/mm). During the ramp to failure, no significant differences in stiffness were detected. The Pulvertaft had the largest ultimate failure load at 67.5 N. Conclusions: The Pulvertaft weave and CoNextions tendon repair device demonstrated similar performance to traditional Pulvertaft tendon weave. The combination technique is faster than the traditional tendon weave and displayed improved performance compared with CoNextions repair alone. Clinical relevance: The combined use of novel tendon repair with a single tendon weave allows for faster tendon coaptation and equivalent strength as a Pulvertaft weave.
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.