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

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.

Slowed-Down Rehabilitation Following Percutaneous Repair of Achilles Tendon Rupture

Background: Following percutaneous repair of acute Achilles tendon (AT) ruptures, early postoperative weightbearing is advocated; however, it is debatable how aggressive rehabilitation should be. We compared the clinical and functional outcomes in 2 groups of patients who followed either our “traditional” or a “slowed down” rehabilitation after percutaneous surgical repair. Methods: Sixty patients were prospectively recruited to a slowed down (29 patients) or a traditional (31 patients) rehabilitation program. Both groups were allowed immediate weightbearing postoperatively; a removable brace with 5 heel wedges was applied at 2 weeks. In the slowed-down group, 1 wedge was removed after 4 weeks. Gradual removal of the boot took place after 4 wedges were kept for 4 weeks. In the traditional group, 1 wedge was removed every 2 weeks, with removal of the boot after 2 wedges had been kept for 2 weeks. The AT Resting Angle (ATRA) evaluated tendon elongation. Patient reported functional outcomes were assessed using the AT Rupture Score (ATRS). Calf circumference difference and the isometric plantarflexion strength of the gastro-soleus complex were evaluated. Results: At the 12-month follow-up, both ATRA and ATRS were more favorable in the slowed-down group. The isometric strength and the calf circumference were more similar to the contralateral leg in the slowed-down group than in the traditional one. Conclusion: Following percutaneous repair of acute Achilles tendon patients undergoing slowed down rehabilitation performed better than the traditional one. These conclusions must be considered within the limitations of the present study. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Risk Stratification of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Repair of Mitral and Tricuspid Valves Using a Multidimensional Geriatric Assessment

Background: Given their advanced age and high comorbidity, individual risk assessment is crucial in patients undergoing transcatheter mitral and tricuspid valve repair. Therefore, we evaluated the use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment score, the multidimensional prognostic index (MPI), for risk stratification in these patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational single-center study, including 226 patients undergoing percutaneous repair for mitral or tricuspid regurgitation. The MPI was calculated preprocedural and covers 8 domains (activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, mental status, nutrition, risk of pressure ulcers, comorbidity, medication, and marital/cohabitation status). We sought to identify an association of MPI score with procedural outcomes and 6-month mortality. Results: A total of 53.1% of patients were stratified as low risk according to MPI (MPI-1 group), 44.2% as medium risk (MPI-2 group), and 2.7% as high risk (MPI-3 group). Procedural efficacy and safety were similar between groups. The estimated survival rate at 6 months was 97±2% in MPI-1 group, 79±4% in MPI-2 group (hazard ratio, 6.90 [95% CI, 2.36–12.2]; P ≤0.001) and 50±20% in MPI-3 group (hazard ratio, 20.3 [95% CI, 4.51–91.3]; P <0.001). An increase in 1 SD of the MPI score (0.14 points, possible range of MPI score 0–1) was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.13 (95% CI, 1.58–2.73; P ≤0.001) for death after 6 months. The risk association of the MPI with mortality remained significant in multivariate analysis including risk factors, such as peripheral artery disease and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels. Conclusions: A comprehensive geriatric assessment with the MPI score provides additional information on mortality risk beyond established cardiovascular risk factors.