Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11851/3821
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorUludağ, Abuzer-
dc.contributor.authorTosun, Hacı Bayram-
dc.contributor.authorÇelik, Suat-
dc.contributor.authorSerbest, Sancar-
dc.contributor.authorKayalar, Murat-
dc.contributor.authorAytaç, Güneş-
dc.contributor.authorSindel, Muzaffer-
dc.contributor.authorErbay Elibol, Fatma Kübra-
dc.contributor.authorDemir, Teyfik-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-21T10:05:15Z
dc.date.available2020-10-21T10:05:15Z
dc.date.issued2020-04
dc.identifier.citationUludağ, A., Tosun, H. B., Çelik, S., Serbest, S., Kayalar, M., Aytaç, G., and Demir, T. (2020). Comparison of various tendon repair techniques in extansor zone 3 injuries: an experimental biomechanical cadaver study. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 1-8.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1434-3916
dc.identifier.issn0936-8051
dc.identifier.urihttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-020-03384-9-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11851/3821-
dc.description.abstractPurpose To compare five different repair techniques for extensor tendon zone III modified Kessler (MK), double-modified Kessler (DMK), modified Kessler epitendinous (MKE), double-modified Kessler epitendinous (DMKE), and running-interlocking horizontal mattress (RIHM) in terms of shortening, stiffness, gap formation, and ultimate load to failure. Methods A total of 35 human cadaver fingers were randomly assigned to five suture techniques with 7 fingers each and were tested under dynamic and static loading conditions. Results DMK was found to be superior over MK in terms of ultimate load to failure (36 N vs. 24 N, respectively), shortening (1.75 vs. 2.20 mm, respectively) and gap formation. However, these two methods had similar characteristics in terms of stiffness. The addition of epitendinous sutures to the repair methods resulted in approximately 40% increase in ultimate load to failure, whereas epitendinous sutures had no effect on shortening. DMKE was found to be superior over MKE in terms of shortening (1.77 vs. 2.22 mm, respectively). However, these two methods had similar characteristics in terms of mean ultimate load to failure and stiffness. RIHM was found to be superior over the other four methods in terms of ultimate load to failure (89 N), stiffness, and shortening (0.75 mm). Conclusion RIHM was found to be stronger and more durable for extensor tendon zone III than the other techniques in terms of ultimate load to failure and stiffness.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofArchives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgeryen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectHand injuryen_US
dc.subjectExtansoren_US
dc.subjectTendon repairen_US
dc.subjectZone 3en_US
dc.subjectSutureen_US
dc.subjectBiomechanicen_US
dc.titleComparison of various tendon repair techniques in extansor zone 3 injuries: an experimental biomechanical cadaver studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentFaculties, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineeringen_US
dc.departmentFakülteler, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Makine Mühendisliği Bölümütr_TR
dc.identifier.volume140
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.startpage583
dc.identifier.endpage590
dc.authorid0000-0001-6352-8302-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000522643800019en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85081036218en_US
dc.institutionauthorDemir, Teyfik-
dc.identifier.pmid32130480en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00402-020-03384-9-
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.grantfulltextnone-
crisitem.author.dept03.14. Department of Internal Medicine-
crisitem.author.dept02.2. Department of Biomedical Engineering-
Appears in Collections:Makine Mühendisliği Bölümü / Department of Mechanical Engineering
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / PubMed Indexed Publications Collection
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / Scopus Indexed Publications Collection
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / WoS Indexed Publications Collection
Show simple item record



CORE Recommender

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

1
checked on Apr 20, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

3
checked on Apr 20, 2024

Page view(s)

64
checked on Apr 22, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check




Altmetric


Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.