Discussion
The ability to tie a reliable and secure knot has always been, and remains, an essential skill for any surgeon, veterinary surgeon, or clinician engaged in any practical clinical discipline,1 and even with the advent of new technological aids and robotic machines to aid our surgical practice,58–60 formation of a secure knot remains an essential part of an individual surgeon’s or practitioner’s craft. In our study, the majority of knots tied with an FRK technique were secure, with no slippage at all, and of those that did slip, the proportional slip was small. Knots tied with this technique, preformed carefully to ensure equal and opposite lengths of suture were entwined, could be considered to be reliable. Those tied with the other two techniques were not secure. All of the latter two types slipped, with all of the materials used, and all tied by each surgeon group.
The degree to which these knots tied with the other two techniques slipped, was remarkable, particularly those tied with one hand maintaining tension on the knot at all times (table 1, figure 8). Those tied with a technique that mimicked a surgeon failing to cross their hands appropriately slipped by more than 100%, those tied by a technique mimicking a surgeon maintaining tension on the knot throughout its formation, as may occur tying in a difficult location or at depth,1 31 42 61 more than 300%. In contrast, the mean degree of slip of knots tied with an FRK technique was markedly less, 6.3%. The small mean result may have been influenced by the large denominator, 120 knots in total, but we did observe that the majority of those FRK that did slip only slipped by a small margin.
Though we observed that knots tied with the largest diameter suture material, 1 nylon (Ethilon), once they did slip, appeared to slip to a greater extent than those tied with the other materials, (tables 2 and 3, figures 9 and 10), the proportion of knots using this material that slipped was not markedly greater (table 2). This apparent difference between suture materials was probably due to the inherent greater strength of the larger suture in comparison to the others; only 52% of knots tied with this larger suture broke on testing. (table 4).
All knots tied with 4/0 poliglecaprone 25 (Monocryl), using the FRK technique, held firm and broke on testing, without slippage (table 3, figure 10.62 We can make no other conclusions regarding results of individual suture materials, only that the technique used markedly influenced the security and reliability of the knot formed, for all the materials used in this study. (tables 1, 3 and 5, figures 8 and 10).
Knots tied with the techniques of maintaining tension on the knot with one hand, and those tied by an operator failing to cross their hands appropriately, included less material in the loop held by the knot than those tied with an FRK technique (table 6). This may be due to knots tied with these techniques being more prone to slip, and these knots may have slipped more tightly again once the first throw was laid, so less material would be subsequently left within the loop secured by the knot.
If such knots can slip more tightly again, following initial formation of the knot, this may lead to undue tension being applied to a suture, and this, in turn, could lead to undue and unintended tension on the suture. This may have a detrimental effect on tissue healing, such as a bowel or ureteric anastomosis, or wound closure. Insecure knots may cause harm not only from loosening and slipping post formation, but also from squashing and crushing tissue inadvertently during their initial formation.
The salient result was the marked difference in the integrity of knots tied with an FRK technique in comparison to those using the other two techniques, and such was the degree of slippage that we should probably consider knots tied with these two other methods dangerous.
Why did these dramatic knot failures occur in our study? Was this a failure of the design of the study, are our results clinically relevant; are we using the wrong type of knot; are modern suture materials too slippery for secure knot formation; and if we accept there is a potential widespread problem with the security of surgical knots in surgical practice in general, can we overcome the problem, or rely on technology to find other ways of securing haemostasis, anastomoses and closure of wounds, other than TK on a suture,56 58–60 ?
We would suggest that secure and reliable surgical knots can be consistently made with the simple reef knot with modern materials, provided we employ a meticulous technique, for each and every layer, or throw, of each knot.40 47
The simple reef knot has been the most commonly used, and taught, surgical knot. The ‘Hercules knot’, or square knot, has been recorded to have been used in surgical practice in Greece in the first century AD, and the square knot, or reef knot has probably been used in general for 2000 years,63–65 The reef knot, tied appropriately, was used to hold heavy, large wet sails in place, even in the worst of stormy weather, as recommended in sailing texts from the 18th century, and described in instruction books for sailors in the 18th and 19th centuries.66–68 If such a simple knot can control such a heavy burden in these difficult circumstances, and has been used so extensively, and for so long in surgical practice,1 63 why did we observe such a problem with those tied with two techniques in this study, and failure rates of 24%–80% reported for reef knots tied by experienced surgeons and in studies on teaching knots to students and junior surgeons1 57 69 ? The answer may lie in how reef knots are untied,70 and in the nature of modern surgical suture materials.
Sailors can untie, or ‘unreef’ a knot by pulling on one strand of the knot, this will change the configuration of the knot so that there will be unequal amounts of the two strands of rope in the knot, and one strand can adopt a straight configuration reducing its frictional surface in contact with the other strand, so that it can be undone (figures 11–13).44 70
Figure 11Flat reef knot prior to being unreefed.
Figure 12Initial effect of pulling on one end of reef knot causing initial loosening.
Figure 13Final effect of pulling on one end of reef knot leading to loosening of knot.
The two knot techniques that produced a failure rate of 100% would have laid unequal amounts of the two suture strands within the knot, reducing the friction between the two strands (figures 2 and 4).
A knot relies on friction between the strands of material placed in mutual apposition within the knot,1 44 45 71 and this in turn will rely on the natural friction, or lack of slipperiness, of the suture material, and how well the two strands are laid together to produce as much mutual contact between them. The FRK technique would potentially lead to as much contact as possible between the two strands, provided care is taken to ensure equal amounts of material are placed in the knot (figures 1 and 7). What we did observe, during the course of the study, and on observation of videos of the knots we formed, was that even if participants took as much care as possible in forming the FRK, small twists in the material could lead to a less than perfect apposition of the suture strands at the final laying down of the knot, leading to unequal strand lengths in the final knot. This may make these particular knots less resistant to slipping on testing, and could explain why a proportion of knots tied with our FRK technique slipped, and why some knots tied by senior surgeons in other studies failed.40 42 51
Knots rely on friction between the strands of material laid in the knot, and the material must have a level of surface friction sufficient to allow knots to hold.1 45 Though more modern suture materials would appear to more slippery, and pass through tissue less traumatically than older and traditional materials, even monofilament nylon has sufficient surface friction to allow a simple reef knot to hold.45
The study design was simple, relying on a winch applied to a weighing spring, to produce an incremental force to distract two metal hooks tied together with the four, dry, suture materials we tested. Other studies assessing different types of knots, rather than technique of knot formation, have validated the use of such simple techniques and equipment.2–8 10 22 28 35 57 ,72 We would suggest that our conclusions on knot security are clinically valid; poor technique can lead to dramatically poor results.
What should we do in clinical practice? This study, and other studies that have compared different types of knots rather than the influence of technique on knot integrity,1–43 have demonstrated that a proportion of knots can slip. This is a small study, and should probably be viewed as a preliminary study, but the results are clear. Do we abandon using sutures and look at other methods relying on technology, such as stapling devices for all anastomoses, haemostatic devices for haemostasis and vessel control, and staple all wounds,56 58–60 or do we accept that technique and craft are essential for a successful outcome when forming knots,40 51 ? Relying on technology would be expensive, and limit our adaptability; we cannot produce sufficient tailor made technological solutions for all surgical eventualities we may encounter, and technology is intended to aid our craft and abilities, not replace it. Instead, we could improve our individual ability to lay secure, flat knots, in all circumstances and anatomical situations, and employ it universally. If a simple task as tying a secure knot can be so affected by technique, should we consider assessing the technique of all our manoeuvres and procedures?