Barbed Sutures and Tendon Repair—a Review

Introduction

Traumatic tendon lacerations are a common problem encountered by hand surgeons worldwide. Although the use of barbed suture to repair tendon lacerations has gained theoretical popularity in recent years, there is little information available regarding the safety, efficacy, longevity, or complications encountered when used in tenorraphy. In this study, we review the available literature on the use of barbed suture in tendon repair.

Methods

Studies conducted between 1980 and 2014 were identified using several databases, including EMBASE, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. Keywords used to search for appropriate studies included the following: barbed, v loc, quill, tendon, tendon injuries, suture, tenorraphy, injury, and laceration, in various combinations.

Results

Our initial literature search identified 47 articles, and 8 were deemed appropriate for review after applying our exclusion criteria. The data from each of the articles is reviewed for the following major categories:

1. Maximum load to failure
2. Mode of failure
3. Load to 2-mm gap
4. Change in cross-sectional area
5. Type of repair

Conclusions

Barbed suture tenorraphy has a myriad of theoretical advantages, supported by varying ex vivo studies, as compared to traditional techniques. However, due to the non-uniformity in current studies and the lack of available data in a live model, we are unable to argue for or against barbed suture tenorraphy. We believe our review provides the most in-depth analysis of barbed suture tenorraphy to date, illuminates the potential advantages of using barbed sutures, and highlights the need for further investigation into this technique.     

When Genetic Load Does Not Correlate with Phenotypic Spectrum: Lessons from the GnRH Receptor (GNRHR)

Context: A broad spectrum of GnRH-deficient phenotypes has been identified in individuals with both mono- and biallelic GNRHR mutations. Objective: The objective of the study was to determine the correlation between the severity of the reproductive phenotype(s) and the number and functional severity of rare sequence variants in GNRHR. Subjects: Eight hundred sixty-three probands with different forms of GnRH deficiency, 46 family members and 422 controls were screened for GNRHR mutations. The 70 subjects (32 patients and 38 family members) harboring mutations were divided into four groups (G1-G4) based on the functional severity of the mutations (complete or partial loss of function) and the number of affected alleles (monoallelic or biallelic) with mutations, and these classes were mapped on their clinical phenotypes. Results: The prevalence of heterozygous rare sequence variants in GNRHR was significantly higher in probands vs. controls (P < 0.01). Among the G1-G3 groups (homozygous subjects with successively decreasing severity and number of mutations), the hypogonadotropic phenotype related to their genetic load. In contrast, subjects in G4, with only monoallelic mutations, demonstrated a greater diversity of clinical phenotypes. Conclusions: In patients with GnRH deficiency and biallelic mutations in GNRHR, genetic burden defined by severity and dose is associated with clinical phenotype. In contrast, for patients with monoallelic GNRHR mutations this correlation does not hold. Taken together, these data indicate that as-yet-unidentified genetic and/or environmental factors may combine with singly mutated GNRHR alleles to produce reproductive phenotypes.