BACKGROUND

To compare biomechanical strength of the Pulvertaft (PT) weave and the side-to-side (STS) tendon repair techniques.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane library from inception to November 2020. All studies comparing the PT weave and STS were included. Methodological quality and assessment of risk of bias were assessed by two independent researchers. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and confirmed by the Begg’s and Egger’s test. The random effects mode was used due to both statistical and clinical heterogeneity among studies.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 624 articles; however, after a thorough review, only six studies were selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis and systematic review. We were able to pool findings for maximum load and load to failure. By definition, maximum load is the peak force achieved in tensile testing while load to failure is the first negative inflection of force during the failure test. For maximum load, results showed that there was no evidence that the two tendon repair techniques were significantly different (SMD = –0.84, z = 0.88, p = 0.379, 95% CI = –2.72 – 1.04). However, there was significantly high heterogeneity detected among the included studies (Q=21.10, p = 0.001, I2 = 90.50%, τ2 = 2.47). For load to failure, results indicated that the load to failure was statistically higher in the side-to-side approach (SMD = 1.36, z = 5.26, p = 0.001, 95% CI = 0.85 – 1.86) than the PT approach. It is also notable that a small, non-significant heterogeneity was detected among the included studies (Q=3.66, p = 0.300, I2 = 18.10%, τ2 = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

STS is stronger than PT weave in terms of load to failure but comparable in terms of maximum load. STS is a possible alternative to PT weave for tendons in need of grafting.

Human ; Tendons

BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation is a therapeutic option with demonstrated efficacy for conditions presenting with perineal pain caused by different etiologies. We aimed to assess whether a sacral electrode (InterStim(R), Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) inserted through the caudal pathway is able to offer an acceptable level of sacral stimulation and rate of catheter migration. METHODS: We present 12 patients with pelvic pain who received sacral neuromodulation via the sacral hiatus with the InterStim electrode. We evaluated patient satisfaction as well as migration and removal of the electrode, if necessary. RESULTS: Our experience included 12 patients, 10 women and two men, with a mean age of 60 years. In eight of the 12 patients, the initial therapy was effective, and the final system implantation was performed. During subsequent follow-up, patient satisfaction was good. To date, there have been no cases of electrode displacement or migration. CONCLUSIONS: The caudal insertion of the InterStim electrode, with its own fixation system, and initially designed for transsacral insertion, appears in our experience to be a satisfactory option which can minimize electrode displacements, achieving similar results in therapeutic efficacy and causing no difficulties in removal.
Catheters ; Electrodes* ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Implantable Neurostimulators ; Male ; Pain Clinics* ; Patient Satisfaction ; Pelvic Pain ; Perineum ; Sacrococcygeal Region ; Sacrum ; Spinal Cord Stimulation