Biomechanical testing of a novel suture pattern for repair of equine tendon lacerations.

This research was conducted to examine and compare the effectiveness of a new suture technique with the current standard suture method used in equine tendon repair. It was discovered that the new 6-strand Savage (SSS) suture method proved stronger and more resistant against separation compared to the traditional 3-loop pulley (3LP) method, even though both techniques demonstrate similar resistance to creating a 3 mm gap following a single load-to-failure test.

Methodology

• The study used a paired design with in vitro methods, specifically utilizing cadaveric horse forelimb tendons (SDFTs).
• Two suture patterns, the 3-loop pulley (3LP) and 6-strand Savage (SSS) were applied to dissected equine SDFTs.
• Ultimate failure load, stiffness, mode of failure, and the load required to create a 3-mm gap were tested and measured using a materials testing system and synchronized high-speed video analysis.
• The results were statistically compared using a Student’s t-test, considering results significant where P < .05.

Findings

• The SSS repair showed resistance to a higher ultimate load (421.1 N ± 47.6) than the 3LP repair (193.7 N ± 43.0; P < .001), suggesting stronger, more durable repair.
• Stiffness between the two methods was not significantly different.
• The mode of failure differed in both methods; SSS repair failed due to suture breakage, whereas 3LP repair failed because of suture pull through.
• The load required to create a 3-mm gap was statistically similar for both SSS (102.0 N ± 22.4) and 3LP repairs (109.9 N ± 16.0; P = .27). This suggests that despite differences in strength, both techniques demonstrate similar resistance to gap formation.

Conclusion

Based on the findings, the SSS suturing technique proved stronger and more resistant against separation, affirming its potential as a superior technique for equine tendon repair. However, further real-world testing is advised since there was no significant difference in the resistance to form a 3mm gap between the two methods when put through a single load-to-failure test.