Research Article

Retrospective Comparison of Open and Percutaneous Repair Methods in Acute Achilles’ Tendon Repair

Volume: 13 Number: 4 October 1, 2022
EN

Retrospective Comparison of Open and Percutaneous Repair Methods in Acute Achilles’ Tendon Repair

Abstract

Purpose: In recent years Achilles’ tendon tears are becoming more common. Open and percutaneous repair methods have been described in the surgical treatment of tendon tears. The aim of this study is to determine whether there is a difference between open repair and percutaneous repair. Methods: Patients who underwent surgical repair due to acute Achilles’ tendon full-thickness rupture in our clinic, were included in the study. Open repair was performed for one group of patients and percutaneous repair was performed for the other. At the end of follow-up, clinical scores and complication rates were compared statistically. Results: Thirty-six patients with a mean age of 46.3 years were included in the study. Nineteen patients were treated with the open method and seventeen patients with the percutaneous method. The mean follow-up period was 27.3 months for both groups. Mean Leppilahti scores were 94.71 in the percutaneous repair group and 90.79 in the open repair group (p>0.05). Re-rupture, deep infection and DVT rates were similar (p>0.05). Skin necrosis was more common in the open repair group (p<0.05). While sural nerve neuropraxia was more common in percutaneous repair (p<0.05). Conclusion: In the surgical treatment of acute Achilles’ tendon tears, the percutaneous method should be the first choice with its low complication rate and good clinical results. It is necessary to pay attention to the sural nerve during surgery.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

References

  1. Suchak AA, Bostick G, Reid D, Blitz S, Jomha N. The incidence of Achilles tendon ruptures in Edmonton, Canada. Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Nov;26(11):932-6. doi: 10.1177/107110070502601106. PMID: 16309606.
  2. Gross CE, Nunley JA 2nd. Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures. Foot Ankle Int. 2016 Feb;37(2):233-9. doi: 10.1177/1071100715619606. Epub 2015 Nov 20. PMID: 26590377.
  3. Willits K, Amendola A, Bryant D, Mohtadi NG, Giffin JR, Fowler P, Kean CO, Kirkley A. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a multicenter randomized trial using accelerated functional rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Dec 1;92(17):2767-75. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01401. Epub 2010 Oct 29. PMID: 21037028.
  4. Maffulli N, Longo UG, Maffulli GD, Khanna A, Denaro V. Achilles tendon ruptures in elite athletes. Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Jan;32(1):9-15. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2011.0009. PMID: 21288429.
  5. Kadakia AR, Dekker RG 2nd, Ho BS. Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures: An Update on Treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017 Jan;25(1):23-31. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00187. PMID: 27898509.
  6. Rosenzweig S, Azar FM. Open repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Foot Ankle Clin. 2009 Dec;14(4):699-709. doi: 10.1016/j.fcl.2009.07.002. PMID: 19857843.
  7. Ververidis AN, Kalifis KG, Touzopoulos P, Drosos GI, Tilkeridis KE, Kazakos KI. Percutaneous repair of the Achilles tendon rupture in athletic population. J Orthop. 2015 Oct 9;13(1):57-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2015.09.004. PMID: 26955226; PMCID: PMC4761618.
  8. DeVries JG, Scharer BM, Summerhays BJ. Acute Achilles Rupture Percutaneous Repair: Approach, Materials, Techniques. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2017 Apr;34(2):251-262. doi: 10.1016/j.cpm.2016.10.011. Epub 2017 Jan 19. PMID: 28257678.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Orthopaedics

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

October 1, 2022

Submission Date

March 23, 2022

Acceptance Date

May 15, 2022

Published in Issue

Year 2022 Volume: 13 Number: 4

EndNote
Akdemir M, Turan AC, Kılıç Aİ (October 1, 2022) Retrospective Comparison of Open and Percutaneous Repair Methods in Acute Achilles’ Tendon Repair. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 13 4 508–513.