Ex-Vivo Evaluation of a Modified Teno Fix(®) Device Repair Pattern Versus a 3-Loop Pulley for Repair of Equine Flexor Tendons.

Abstract

To compare the load to ultimate failure, load to a 2 mm gap, mode of failure, and gap at failure (mm) of the Teno Fix(®) (TF) to the 3-loop pulley (3LP) for repair of equine tendon lacerations. The use of 4TF devices versus 5TF devices on load to ultimate failure and load to a 2 mm gap was also compared. Ex vivo biomechanical study; unbalanced incomplete block (horse) design. Cadaveric equine forelimb superficial digital flexor tendon (n = 20 paired tendons). Ten tendon pairs were selected randomly and repaired with a 3LP and 4TF pattern, and 10 tendon pairs repaired with a 3LP and 5TF pattern. Load to ultimate failure, load to a 2 mm gap, mode of failure, and gap at failure were obtained using materials testing. The 3LP had a significantly greater ultimate load to failure (P < .001, respectively) and a significantly higher load to a 2 mm gap than both TF repairs (P < .001, respectively). The most frequent mode of failure was suture pull-out for the 3LP and anchor pull-out for the TF. Gap at failure was significantly larger in the 3LP than both TF repairs (P < .001). The ultimate load to failure was significantly higher for the 5TF than the 4TF (P = .004) but there was no significant difference in load to a 2 mm gap, or gap at failure between both TF repairs (P = .11, P = .15, respectively). Neither TF repair was stronger than the 3LP in load to ultimate failure and load to a 2 mm gap. Addition of a fifth TF device significantly increased the load to ultimate failure but did effect the load to a 2 mm gap over the 4TF.