Introduction: Secondary repair of flexor tendon injuries remain a challenging procedure for hand surgeons. Usually, secondary reconstruction should be performed by staged approach. When the tendon and pulley integrity are intact, tenolysis may be the first surgical option. One-/two-stage tendon grafts are suggested when the integrity of flexor tendon is compromised. Active tendon implants (Brunelli prostheses) may represent an efficient option in patients with a poor prognosis, as well as whenever classical techniques fail. Due to lack of literature about this second-line treatment, the authors present the experience of two different orthopedic departments with the permanent active tendon implant. Materials and method: Nineteen consecutive patients with failed previous flexor tendons repairs were treated with active tendon implants between 2000 and 2011. The functional outcome of the patients was examined with a mean follow-up of 5.6 years, using Strickland assessment and QuickDASH. Results: In 16 cases, the tendon implants were well tolerated and patients resulted satisfied with a QuickDASH score less than 33. Strickland score was fair to excellent in 10 patients. We registered adhesion complications in 3 cases. Conclusion: We can conclude that these prostheses represent an alternative to biological reconstructions and a potentially permanent procedure in complicated flexor tendon injuries. Level of evidence: Multicentric case series, Level IV.
Treatment of flexor tendon reconstruction failures: multicentric experience with Brunelli active tendon implant
Poggetti, A.;Novi, M.;Scaglione, M.;
2017-01-01
Abstract
Introduction: Secondary repair of flexor tendon injuries remain a challenging procedure for hand surgeons. Usually, secondary reconstruction should be performed by staged approach. When the tendon and pulley integrity are intact, tenolysis may be the first surgical option. One-/two-stage tendon grafts are suggested when the integrity of flexor tendon is compromised. Active tendon implants (Brunelli prostheses) may represent an efficient option in patients with a poor prognosis, as well as whenever classical techniques fail. Due to lack of literature about this second-line treatment, the authors present the experience of two different orthopedic departments with the permanent active tendon implant. Materials and method: Nineteen consecutive patients with failed previous flexor tendons repairs were treated with active tendon implants between 2000 and 2011. The functional outcome of the patients was examined with a mean follow-up of 5.6 years, using Strickland assessment and QuickDASH. Results: In 16 cases, the tendon implants were well tolerated and patients resulted satisfied with a QuickDASH score less than 33. Strickland score was fair to excellent in 10 patients. We registered adhesion complications in 3 cases. Conclusion: We can conclude that these prostheses represent an alternative to biological reconstructions and a potentially permanent procedure in complicated flexor tendon injuries. Level of evidence: Multicentric case series, Level IV.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
