Journals / Kartal Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of Percutaneous and Open Techniques in Treatment of Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture

Akut Aşil Tendon Rüptürü Tedavisinde Perkütan ve Açık Tekniklerin Karşılaştırılması

Pages
243–247
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Percutaneous and open Achilles repair can beperformed with successful functional rates, and percutaneoustechnique did not show any superiority in terms of early recov- ery and return to work.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: Acute Achilles tendon rupture is a common inj uryfor which recommended treatment is still controversial.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Ninety patients (33 percutaneous repairs with amean follow-up of 39 [ 16 49] months, and 57 open repairs witha mean follow-up of 44. 16 [ 16 95] months) were included in thisretrospective, comparative study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Percutaneous and open Achilles repair can beperformed with successful functional rates, and percutaneoustechnique did not show any superiority in terms of early recov- ery and return to work.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: Acute Achilles tendon rupture is a common inj uryfor which recommended treatment is still controversial. The aimof the present study was to compare functional results of percu- taneous and open surgical techniques of Achilles tendon repair. Methods: Ninety patients (33 percutaneous repairs with amean follow-up of 39 [ 16 49] months, and 57 open repairs witha mean follow-up of 44. 16 [ 16 95] months) were included in thisretrospective, comparative study. Patients were evaluated forAmerican Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores,ankle range of motion (ROM), dorsiflexion and plantar flexionstrength, and time of return to work and sports at last follow-up.Results: Both groups had similar demographic character- istics, and there were no differences in terms of age, gender,and mean follow-up. In functional assessment, there were nostatistical differences in AOFAS scores (p=0.266), plantar flexion(p=0. 106), dorsiflexion (p=0. 104), plantar flexion (p=0.4 13), anddorsiflexion strength (p=0.53 1) between the 2 groups. Regard- ing complications, there were no statistical differences betweenthe groups. Conclusion: Percutaneous and open Achilles repair can beperformed with successful functional rates, and percutaneoustechnique did not show any superiority in terms of early recov- ery and return to work.

Özet

Amaç: Aşil tendon rüptürü sık rastlanan bir yaralanma türüolmasına rağmen tedavisi halen tartışmalıdır. ÇalışmamızdaAşil tendon tamirinde kullanılan perkütan ve açık cerrahitekniklerin fonksiyonel durumunu karşılaştırmak amaçlan- mıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamızda 33ü perkütan (ortalamatakip süresi 39 [16 49] ay), 57si açık (ortalama takip süresi44,16 [16 95] ay) teknikle tedavi edilmiş 90 hastanın sonuç- ları geriye dönük olarak karşılaştırıldı. Hastalar AOFAS skoru,ayakbileği eklem hareket açıklığı, dorsifleksiyon ve plantarfleksiyon gücü, işe ve spora yeniden başlama zamanları açı- sından değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Her iki grubun demografik özellikleri benzer ola- rak değerlendirildi ve yaş, cinsiyet, ortalama takip süreleriaçısından fark yoktu. Fonksiyonel değerlendirmede AOFASskorlarında (p=0.266), plantar fleksiyonda (p=0.106), dor- sifleksiyonda (p=0.104), dorsifleksiyon (p=0.531) ve plantarfleksiyon (p=0.413) güçlerinde iki grup arasında istatistikselolarak anlamlı fark yoktu. Grupların komplikasyon oranların- da anlamlı fark yoktu. Sonuç: Aşil tendon rüptüründe perkütan ve açık tekniklerinfonksiyonel sonuçları başarılıdır ve perkütan tekniğin erkeniyileşme ve işe dönme açısından üstünlüğü gösterilememiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

POLAT, G., AKPINAR, E., TUNCAY, İ., ERDİL, M., CEYLAN, H. H., ERGİN, Ö. N. (2022). Comparison of Percutaneous and Open Techniques in Treatment of Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture. Kartal Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3, 243–247. https://ajindex.com/articles/571297

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Khan RJ, Fick D, Keogh A, Crawford J, Brammar T, Parker M. Treatment of acute achilles tendon ruptures. A meta- analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87(10):2202–10
  2. Maffulli N, Waterston SW, Squair J, Reaper J, Douglas AS. Changing incidence of Achilles tendon rupture in Scot- land: a 15-year study. Clin J Sport Med 1999;9(3):157–60
  3. Józsa L, Kvist M, Bálint BJ, Reffy A, Järvinen M, Lehto M, et al. The role of recreational sport activity in Achilles ten- don rupture. A clinical, pathoanatomical, and sociologi- cal study of 292 cases. Am J Sports Med 1989;17(3):338– 43
  4. Maffulli N. Rupture of the Achilles tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81(7):1019–36
  5. Khan RJ, Fick D, Brammar TJ, Crawford J, Parker MJ. In- terventions for treating acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(3):CD003674
  6. Bossley CJ. Rupture of the Achilles tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82-A(12):1804
  7. Martinelli B. Rupture of the Achilles tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82-A(12):1804
  8. Raisbeck CC. Rupture of the Achilles tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82-A(12):1804–5
  9. Mandelbaum BR, Myerson MS, Forster R. Achilles ten- don ruptures. A new method of repair, early range of motion, and functional rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med 1995;23(4):392–5
  10. Webb JM, Bannister GC. Percutaneous repair of the rup- tured tendo Achillis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81(5):877– 80
  11. Cetti R, Christensen SE, Ejsted R, Jensen NM, Jorgensen U. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. A prospective randomized study and re- view of the literature. Am J Sports Med 1993;21(6):791– 9
  12. Kocher MS, Bishop J, Marshall R, Briggs KK, Hawkins RJ. Operative versus nonoperative management of acute Achilles tendon rupture: expected-value decision analy- sis. Am J Sports Med 2002;30(6):783–90
  13. Ma GW, Griffith TG. Percutaneous repair of acute closed ruptured achilles tendon: a new technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977;(128):247–55
  14. Klein W, Lang DM, Saleh M. The use of the Ma-Griffith technique for percutaneous repair of fresh ruptured tendo Achillis. Chir Organi Mov 1991;76(3):223–8
  15. Kakiuchi M. A combined open and percutaneous tech- nique for repair of tendo Achillis. Comparison with open repair. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77(1):60–3
  16. Webb JM, Bannister GC. Percutaneous repair of the rup- tured tendo Achillis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81(5):877– 80
  17. Cretnik A, Kosanovic M, Smrkolj V. Per