Functional Outcomes Of Primary Open Repair With Augmentation And Without Augmentation In Achilles Tendon Rupture

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 446
Author(s):  
YILMAZ ERGISI ◽  
GULCAN HARPUT ◽  
BURAK ULUSOY ◽  
HAKAN SELEK ◽  
HAMZA OZER ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture

scholarly journals PO 18150 - Comparison between the open and minimally invasive repair techniques in acute Achilles tendon injuries

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (Supl 1) ◽  
pp. S32
Author(s):  
João Paulo Primo de Araujo ◽  
Marcus Vinicius Mota Garcia Moreno ◽  
Janice De Souza Guimarães ◽  
Marilton Jorge Torres Gomes ◽  
Túlio Eduardo Marçal Vieira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Repair Technique ◽  
Repair Techniques

Objective: Our study compares the functional outcomes of patients who underwent open repair of the Achilles tendon with those of patients treated with the minimally invasive technique using the percutaneous Achilles repair system (PARS) over a 1-year minimum follow-up period and presents the complication rates for the 2 techniques. Methods: Between 2011 and 2016, 31 patients were reviewed; of these, 20 were included in the study (10 PARS X 10 open repair technique). Patients with chronic Achilles tendon rupture, insertional or bilateral, and patients with a history of surgery or previous ankle pathology that could mask functional outcomes were excluded from the study. The open repair technique was performed via a posteromedial incision to the ankle to repair the tendon and was combined with myotendinous transfer of the flexor hallucis longus tendon, which was fixed with a Biotenodesis screw. The minimally invasive technique was performed using the PARS of the company Arthrex through a small transverse incision at the site of the Achilles tendon rupture. Functional outcomes and complications were collected after at least 1 year of follow-up. Results: Both groups had similar American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores (PARS: 95.3±5.1, open: 96.5±5.1; p=0.604), demonstrating similar functional outcomes. The PARS group had a higher number of complications than the open repair group (PARS: 20% x open: 10%), but the difference was not significant (p=0.383). Conclusion: For the treatment of acute Achilles tendon injuries, the PARS and open repair techniques had similar functional outcomes after 1 year of follow-up.

One-Step Approach for Infections After Achilles Tendon Open Repair: The Distally Based Peroneus Brevis Muscle Flap

2020 ◽  
pp. 153473462095154
Author(s):  
Luca Vaienti ◽  
Giuseppe Cottone ◽  
Giovanna Zaccaria ◽  
Emanuele Rampino Cordaro ◽  
Francesco Amendola
Keyword(s):  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Muscle Flap ◽  
Full Weight Bearing ◽  
Peroneus Brevis ◽  
Distally Based

The aim of this single-center, retrospective study is to demonstrate the effectiveness of distally based peroneus brevis muscle flap as first therapeutic option for infections after Achilles tendon open repair. We retrospectively analyzed 14 consecutive patients with complete Achilles tendon rupture and developing surgical site infection after an attempt of open surgical repair. Every patient was reconstructed with distally base peroneus brevis muscle flap. The primary outcome was the return to work and the initiation of full weight-bearing. Secondary outcomes were complication rate and time needed to return to work. A review of the literature was conducted to better define the actual standard treatment. Each patient returned to work. No flap necrosis occurred. Two minor healing delays and one hematoma were reported. Median time to wound healing was 17 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 13-20). Median time to full weight-bearing was 52 days (IQR = 47-55). Median follow-up (FU) was 21 months. Distally based peroneus brevis flap is a safe treatment for surgical site infections after Achilles tendon rupture repair. Patients regained full weight-bearing after a median time of 52 days from the surgical reconstruction. No major complications were observed. This flap clearly emerges as first reconstructive option for complications after surgery of Achilles tendon region.

Percutaneous versus Open Repair of the Ruptured Achilles Tendon

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (9) ◽  
pp. 1369-1379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrej Čretnik ◽  
Miloš Kosanović ◽  
Vladimir Smrkolj
Keyword(s):  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Tendon Repair ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
American Orthopaedic

Background Controversy regarding the optimal treatment of the fresh total Achilles tendon rupture remains. Purpose To compare the results of percutaneous and open Achilles tendon repair. Study Design Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods The results of 132 consecutive patients with acute complete Achilles tendon rupture who were operated on exclusively with modified percutaneous repair under local anesthesia from 1991 to 1997 and followed up for at least 2 years were compared to the results of 105 consecutive patients who were operated on exclusively with open repair under general or spinal anesthesia in the same period. Results There were significantly fewer major complications in the group of percutaneous repairs in comparison with the group of open repairs (4.5% vs 12.4%; P = .03), particularly necrosis (0% vs 5.6%; P = .019), and a lower total number of complications (9.7% vs 21%; P = .013). There were slightly more reruptures (3.7% vs 2.8%; P = .680) and sural nerve disturbances (4.5% vs 2.8%; P = .487) in the group of percutaneous repairs, with no statistically significant difference. Functional assessment using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scale and the Holz score showed no statistically significant difference. Conclusion The results of the study support the choice of (modified) percutaneous suturing under local anesthesia as the method that brings comparable functional results to open repair, with a significantly lower rate of complications.

scholarly journals Comparison of mini-open repair system and percutaneous repair for acute Achilles tendon rupture

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Li ◽  
Qiang Jiang ◽  
Hua Chen ◽  
Hongkui Xin ◽  
Qing He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Repair System ◽  
Percutaneous Repair ◽  
Repair Group ◽  
Mini Open

Abstract Background To reduce incision complications, minimally invasive operative approaches for treatment with acute Achilles tendon rupture have been developed, such as Mini-open repair and percutaneous repair. Which technique is the better surgical option? In the present study, we compared the two surgical procedures— modified Mini-open repair versus percutaneous repair—in the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture. Methods From January 2016 to November 2018, 68 matched patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture were divided into treatment group (Mini-open with modified Ma-Griffith technique) and control group (the Ma–Griffith technique). The patients were then treated with different surgical techniques and followed up for no less than 24 months, and the functional outcome scores and complications were retrospectively evaluated. Results The mean follow-up time in Mini-open repair group was 29.0±2.9 months, and that in control group was 27.9±2.9 months (P=0.147). The Mini-open repair group showed reliably higher American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score and Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS) than the control group in functional assessment (95.0±3.8 vs. 92.3±5.3, P=0.000; 93.8±3.8 vs. 90.9±4.5,P=0.000). There was no cases of sural nerve injury in Mini-open repair group, whereas the percutaneous repair group had 5 cases of the same (P=0.027). No significant differences were found in the calf circumference (32.3±3.9 vs. 31.8±3.6) (P=0.564), range of motion of the ankle (51.3±4.8 vs. 50.5±4.2, P=0.362), or wound complications (34/0 vs. 34/0) (P=1.000) between the two groups at the end of the follow-up time. However, the percutaneous repair group had a shorter average operating time (23.1±5.2 min) than that of the Mini-open repair group (27.7±4.3 min) (P=0.000). Conclusions Acute Achilles tendon ruptures may be treated successfully with a new Mini-open repair system or percutaneous repair technique. However, the Mini-open repair system may represent a superior surgical option, since it offers advantages in terms of direct visual control of the repair, AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score, Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score and risk of sural nerve palsy. Study design Case-control studies, Level of evidence, 3.

scholarly journals Management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 561-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
X. Yang ◽  
H. Meng ◽  
Q. Quan ◽  
J. Peng ◽  
S. Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Functional Rehabilitation ◽  
Percutaneous Repair ◽  
Tendon Ruptures ◽  
Mini Open

ObjectivesThe incidence of acute Achilles tendon rupture appears to be increasing. The aim of this study was to summarize various therapies for acute Achilles tendon rupture and discuss their relative merits.MethodsA PubMed search about the management of acute Achilles tendon rupture was performed. The search was open for original manuscripts and review papers limited to publication from January 2006 to July 2017. A total of 489 papers were identified initially and finally 323 articles were suitable for this review.ResultsThe treatments of acute Achilles tendon rupture include operative and nonoperative treatments. Operative treatments mainly consist of open repair, percutaneous repair, mini-open repair, and augmentative repair. Traditional open repair has lower re-rupture rates with higher risks of complications. Percutaneous repair and mini-open repair show similar re-rupture rates but lower overall complication rates when compared with open repair. Percutaneous repair requires vigilance against nerve damage. Functional rehabilitation combining protected weight-bearing and early controlled motion can effectively reduce re-rupture rates with satisfactory outcomes. Biological adjuncts help accelerating tendon healing by adhering rupture ends or releasing highly complex pools of signalling factors.ConclusionThe optimum treatment for complete rupture remains controversial. Both mini-open repair and functional protocols are attractive alternatives, while biotherapy is a potential future development. Cite this article: X. Yang, H. Meng, Q. Quan, J. Peng, S. Lu, A. Wang. Management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: A review. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:561–569. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.710.BJR-2018-0004.R2.

scholarly journals A comparative study of innovative percutaneous repair and open repair for acute Achilles tendon rupture: Innovative usage of intraoperative ultrasonography

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 230949902091027
Author(s):  
Jeong-Kil Lee ◽  
Chan Kang ◽  
Deuk-Soo Hwang ◽  
Dong-Hun Kang ◽  
Gi-Soo Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Nerve Injury ◽  
Sural Nerve ◽  
Tendon Rupture ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Achilles Tendon Rupture ◽  
Operative Outcomes ◽  
Athletic Ability ◽  
Percutaneous Repair

Purpose: There is no definitive consensus on the optimal treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. We comparatively analyzed the clinical outcomes of two types of repair surgeries in treating Achilles tendon rupture. Methods: This retrospective study included 12 patients of Achilles tendon rupture (group A) treated with ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair and 18 patients (group B) treated with open repair. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Arner–Lindholm scale, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle–hindfoot score, Achilles Tendon Total Rupture score (ATRS), visual analog scale, time to single heel raise, bilateral calf circumferences, recovery of athletic ability, and other complications. Results: While the Arner–Lindholm scale, AOFAS ankle–hindfoot score, ATRS, time point when single heel raise was possible, differences in bilateral calf circumference, and recovery of athletic ability compared to pre-rupture level were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.999, 0.235, 0.357, 0.645, 0.497, and 0.881, respectively), overall and aesthetic satisfaction levels were higher in the group treated with percutaneous repair under ultrasonography guidance (p = 0.035 and 0.001, respectively). Overall, there were no cases involving sural nerve injury in either group. Conclusion: Innovative percutaneous repair provides not only similar clinical outcomes but also greater overall and aesthetic satisfaction levels of operative outcomes and minimal complications (i.e. sural nerve injury) compared to open repair surgeries. Therefore, percutaneous repair may be a useful technique in the treatment of Achilles tendon rupture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document