Flexor tendon repair using a reinforced tubular, medicated electrospun construct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reinforced tubular, medicated electrospun construct was developed for deep flexor tendon repair. This construct combines mechanical strength with the release of anti-inflammatory and anti-adhesion drugs. In this study, the reinforced construct was evaluated using a rabbit model. It was compared to its components (a tubular, medicated electrospun polymer without reinforcement and a tubular braid as such) on the one hand to a modified Kessler suture as a control group. Forty New Zealand rabbits were randomly divided into two groups. Surgery was performed in the second and fourth deep flexor tendons of one hind paw of the rabbits in the two groups using four repair techniques. Biomechanical tensile testing and macroscopic and histological evaluations were performed at 3 and 8 weeks postoperatively. A two-way analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons revealed that the three experimental surgical techniques (a reinforced tubular medicated electrospun construct, tubular-medicated construct, and tubular braid as such) showed similar strength as that of a modified Kessler suture repair, which was characterized by a mean load at ultimate failure of 19.85 N (standard deviation [SD] 5.29 N) at 3 weeks and 18.15 N (SD 8.01 N) at 8 weeks. Macroscopically, a significantly different adhesion pattern was observed at the suture knots, either centrally or peripherally, depending on the technique. Histologically, a qualitative assessment showed good to excellent repair at the tendon repair site, irrespective of the applied technique. This study demonstrates that mechanical and biological repair strategies for flexor tendon repair can be successfully combined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".