Biomechanical Strength Comparison Between Pulvertaft Weave and Side-to-Side Tendon Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Carlos Miguel Santos, John Hubert Pua

Oct 2025 DOI 10.35460/2546-1621.2023-0052     Access   

Abstract

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.

 

Keywords: Pulvertaft weave, side-to-side repair, biomechanical strength, tendon repair, tendon graft

  1. Khan K, Riaz M, Murison MS, Brennen MD. Early active mobilization after second stage flexor tendon grafts. J Hand Surg Br [Internet]. 1997;22(3):372–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0266-7681(97)80404-4
  2. Pettengill KM. The evolution of early mobilization of the repaired flexor tendon. J Hand Ther [Internet]. 2005;18(2):157–68. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1197/j.jht.2005.01.007
  3. Tonkin M, Hagberg L, Lister G, Kutz J. Post-operative management of flexor tendon grafting. J Hand Surg Br [Internet]. 1988;13(3):277–81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-7681_88_90085-x
  4. Vucekovich K, Gallardo G, Fiala K. Rehabilitation after flexor tendon repair, reconstruction, and tenolysis. Hand Clin [Internet]. 2005;21(2):257–65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2004.11.006
  5. Rivlin M, Eberlin KR, Kachooei AR, Hosseini A, Zivaljevic N, Li G, et al. Side-to-side versus Pulvertaft extensor tenorrhaphy-A biomechanical study. J Hand Surg Am [Internet]. 2016;41(11):e393–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.106
  6. Kannan S, Ghosh AI, Dias JJ, Singh HP. Comparative biomechanical characteristics of modified side-to-side repair and modified pulvertaft weaving repair - in vitro study. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol [Internet]. 2019;24(1):76–82. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835519500140
  7. Pulvertaft RG. Tendon grafts for flexor tendon injuries in the fingers and thumb; a study of technique and results. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 1956;38-B(1):175–94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.38B1.175
  8. Gabuzda GM, Lovallo JL, Nowak MD. Tensile strength of the end-weave flexor tendon repair. An in vitro biomechanical study. J Hand Surg Br [Internet]. 1994;19(3):397–400. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-7681(94)90098-1
  9. Strandenes E, Ellison P, Mølster A, Gjerdet NR, Moldestad IO, Høl PJ. Strength of Pulvertaft modifications: tensile testing of porcine flexor tendons. J Hand Surg Eur Vol [Internet]. 2019;44(8):795–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193419841522
  10. Fridén J, Tirrell TF, Bhola S, Lieber RL. The mechanical strength of side-to-side tendon repair with mismatched tendon size and shape. J Hand Surg Eur Vol [Internet]. 2015;40(3):239–45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193413517327
  11. Brown SHM, Hentzen ER, Kwan A, Ward SR, Fridén J, Lieber RL. Mechanical strength of the side-to-side versus Pulvertaft weave tendon repair. J Hand Surg Am [Internet]. 2010;35(4):540–5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.01.009
  12. Tanaka T, Zhao C, Ettema AM, Zobitz ME, An K-N, Amadio PC. Tensile strength of a new suture for fixation of tendon grafts when using a weave technique. J Hand Surg Am [Internet]. 2006;31(6):982–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2006.03.020
  13. Vincken NLA, Lauwers TMAS, van der Hulst RRWJ. Biomechanical and dimensional measurements of the Pulvertaft weave versus the cow-hitch technique. Hand (N Y) [Internet]. 2017;12(1):78–84. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944716646758
  14. Choke A, Rung WY, McGrouther DA, Bin Abd Razak HR. The strengths of one-, two-, and three-weave Pulvertaft tendon repairs. J Hand Surg Eur Vol [Internet]. 2020;45(10):1051–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193420926097
  15. De Smet L, Schollen W, Degreef I. In vitro biomechanical study to compare the double-loop technique with the Pulvertaft weave for tendon anastomosis. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg [Internet]. 2008;42(6):305–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02844310802401330
  16. Bidic SM, Varshney A, Ruff MD, Orenstein HH. Biomechanical comparison of lasso, Pulvertaft weave, and side-by-side tendon repairs. Plast Reconstr Surg [Internet]. 2009;124(2):567–71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181addb8f
  17. Sajid S, Day E, Kuiper JH, Singh R, Pickard S. Biomechanical evaluation comparing pulvertaft Weave and Side-to-Side tenorrhaphy using porcine tendons. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol [Internet]. 2020;25(4):447–52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835520500496
  18. Domnick C, Wieskötter B, Raschke MJ, Schulze M, Kronenberg D, Wefelmeier M, et al. Evaluation of biomechanical properties: are porcine flexor tendons and bovine extensor tendons eligible surrogates for human tendons in in vitro studies? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg [Internet]. 2016;136(10):1465–71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2529-2
  19. Hausmann J-T, Vekszler G, Bijak M, Benesch T, Vécsei V, Gäbler C. Biomechanical comparison of modified Kessler and running suture repair in 3 different animal tendons and in human flexor tendons. J Hand Surg Am [Internet]. 2009;34(1):93–101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2008.09.015
  20. Kadar A, Thoreson AR, Reisdorf RL, Amadio PC, Moran SL, Zhao C. Turkey model for flexor tendon research: in vitro comparison of human, canine, turkey, and chicken tendons. J Surg Res [Internet]. 2017;216:46–55. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.03.035
  21. Peltz TS, Hoffman SW, Scougall PJ, Gianoutsos MP, Savage R, Oliver RA, et al. Animal models for tendon repair experiments: A comparison of pig, sheep and human deep flexor tendons in Zone II. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol [Internet]. 2017;22(3):329–36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218810417500381
  22. Smith AM, Forder JA, Annapureddy SR, Reddy KSK, Amis AA. The porcine forelimb as a model for human flexor tendon surgery. J Hand Surg Br [Internet]. 2005;30(3):307–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2005.02.003
  23. Tsiampa VA, Ignatiadis I, Papalois A, Givissis P, Christodoulou A, Fridén J. Structural and mechanical integrity of tendon-to-tendon attachments used in upper limb tendon transfer surgery. J Plast Surg Hand Surg [Internet]. 2012;46(3–4):262–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3109/2000656X.2012.684097

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which permits use, share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material, as long as you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.