Dataset Information

No difference in strength and clinical outcome between early and late repair after Achilles tendon rupture.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This retrospective study aimed to determine the patient-reported and functional outcome of patients with delayed presentation, who had received no treatment until 14 days following injury of Achilles tendon rupture repaired with minimally invasive surgery and were compared with a group of sex- and age-matched patients presenting acutely. Based on the outcomes following delayed presentation reported in the literature, it was hypothesized that outcomes would be inferior for self-reported outcome, tendon elongation, heel-rise performance, ability to return to play, and complication rates than for acutely managed patients.

Methods

Repair was performed through an incision large enough to permit mobilisation of the tendon ends, core suture repair consisting of a modified Bunnell suture proximally and a Kessler suture distally and circumferential running suture augmentation.

Results

Nine patients presented 21.8 (14.9) days (range 14-42 days) after rupture. The rate of delayed presentation was estimated to be 1 in 10. At 12 months following repair, patients with delayed treatment had median (range) ATRS score of 90 (69-99) compared with 94 (75-100) in patients treated acutely presenting 0.66 (1.7) (0-5) days. There were no significant differences between groups: ATRA [mean (SD) delayed: -?6.9° (5.5), acute: -?6° (4.7)], heel-rise height index [delayed: 79% (20), acute: 74% (14)], or heel-rise repetition index [delayed: 77% (20), acute: 71% (20)]. In the delayed presentation group, two patients had wound infection and one iatrogenic sural nerve injury.

Conclusions

Patients presenting more than 2 weeks after Achilles tendon rupture may be successfully treated with minimally invasive repair.

Level of evidence

III.

SUBMITTER: Carmont MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7176605 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

No difference in strength and clinical outcome between early and late repair after Achilles tendon rupture.

Carmont Michael R MR Zellers Jennifer A JA Brorsson Annelie A Silbernagel Karin Grävare KG Karlsson Jón J Nilsson-Helander Katarina K

Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA 20181229 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>This retrospective study aimed to determine the patient-reported and functional outcome of patients with delayed presentation, who had received no treatment until 14 days following injury of Achilles tendon rupture repaired with minimally invasive surgery and were compared with a group of sex- and age-matched patients presenting acutely. Based on the outcomes following delayed presentation reported in the literature, it was hypothesized that outcomes would be inferior for self-re ...[more]

PMID: 30594954

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo 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.MethodsFrom 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsAcute 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 designCase-control studies, Level of evidence, 3.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) continues to gain in popularity. The primary aim of the study was to review the outcomes of a patient cohort undergoing a novel technique of endoscopic percutaneous Achilles tendon repair with absorbable suture. A secondary purpose of this study was to evaluate the basic biomechanical properties of the technique.MethodsA cohort of 30 patients who underwent percutaneous ATR repair was retrospectively analyzed with Achilles Tendon Rupture Scores (ATRS), complications, and additional outcome measures. For a biomechanical analysis portion of the study, 12 cadaveric specimens were paired and randomized to either novel percutaneous repair or open Kessler repair with absorbable suture. These specimens were subjected to 2 phases of cyclical testing (100 cycles 10-43 N followed by 200 cycles 10-86 N) and ultimate strength testing.ResultsIn the clinical portion of the study we report excellent patient reported outcomes (mean ATRS 94.1), high level of return to sport, and high patient satisfaction. One partial re-rupture was reported but with no major wound or neurologic complications. In the biomechanical portion of the study we found no significant difference in tendon gapping between percutaneous and open repairs in phase 1 of testing. In phase 2, increased gapping occurred between percutaneous (17.8 mm [range 10.7-24.1, SD 6.4]) and open repairs (10.8 mm [range 7.6-14.9, SD 2.7, P = .037]). The ultimate load at failure was not statistically different between the 2 repairs.ConclusionsA percutaneous ATR repair technique using endoscopic assistance and absorbable suture demonstrated low complications and good outcomes in a cohort of patients, with high satisfaction, and excellent functional outcomes including high rates of return to sport. Cadaveric biomechanical testing demonstrated excellent survival during testing and minimal increase in gapping compared with open repair technique, representing sufficient strength to withstand forces seen in early rehabilitation. A percutaneous Achilles tendon repair technique with absorbable suture may minimize risks associated with operative repair while still maintaining the benefit of operative repair.Level of evidenceLevel IV, retrospective case series.

Dataset Information

No difference in strength and clinical outcome between early and late repair after Achilles tendon rupture.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Publications

No difference in strength and clinical outcome between early and late repair after Achilles tendon rupture.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets