Biomechanical comparison of Krackow locking stitch versus nonlocking loop stitch with varying number of throws

35Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Common suture configuration techniques used for ligament and tendon grafts and repair are the Krackow locking stitch and a nonlocking loop stitch, such as a whipstitch. Clinically, the preferences of orthopaedic surgeons vary. Hypothesis: The Krackow locking stitch and the nonlocking whipstitch, with varying suture loops, produce different biomechanical and physical effects on the tendon end. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 52 fresh-frozen porcine flexor digitorum tendons were used and assigned into 10 groups. Two stitch configurations (Krackow stitch [K] and whipstitch [W]) with varying number of loops (2 throws, n = 6; 4 throws, n = 5; 6 throws, n = 5; 8 throws, n = 5; 10 throws, n = 5) were tested. No. 2 FiberWire was used. Each sample was preloaded to 5 N and then cyclically loaded for 200 cycles to 200 N at 1 Hz, and then the tendon-suture construct was analyzed for gap formation, tendon elongation, and tendon end width. Next, each tendon was loaded to failure, and ultimate strength and mode of failure were recorded. Data were evaluated with 2-way analysis of variance. Results: For gap formation, the Krackow stitch produced less gap compared with the whipstitch (15.2 ± 4.0 mm [K] vs 18.9 ± 6.8 mm [W]; P = .012). Gap formation was larger when the number of loops increased from 2 to ≥6 (P = .015). For elongation, the Krackow technique increased the tendon length after cyclic loading. In contrast, the whipstitch was noted to shorten the length of the tendon (1.17 ± 0.97 mm [K] vs -0.14 ± 1.13 mm [W]; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hahn, J. M., Inceoʇlu, S., & Wongworawat, M. D. (2014). Biomechanical comparison of Krackow locking stitch versus nonlocking loop stitch with varying number of throws. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 42(12), 3003–3008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514550989

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free