[Surgical or non-operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture : What does the current literature say?]

Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1007/s00132-024-04556-w
Matthias Aurich, Lars Becherer, Stefan Rammelt
{"title":"[Surgical or non-operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture : What does the current literature say?]","authors":"Matthias Aurich, Lars Becherer, Stefan Rammelt","doi":"10.1007/s00132-024-04556-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Achilles tendon is the strongest tendon in humans and is frequently injured, especially in the physically active young to middle-aged population. An increasing frequency of Achilles tendon ruptures (ATR) has been reported in several studies. However, there is no international consensus regarding possible non-operative (N-OP) or operative (surgical) treatment (OP).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this article is to semi-quantitatively compare both treatment options for ATR by analyzing the results reported in the literature.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>For this purpose, relevant categories were identified, and the literature was then evaluated in a PubMed analysis. Ten meta-analyses and two cost analyses were included. The data was extracted according to the categories and evaluated comparatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>OP and N‑OP for acute ATR can lead to equally good restitution of clinical function if early functional rehabilitation is applied. The lower re-rupture rate is an advantage of OP, whereas the lower general complications speak in favor of N‑OP. The minimally invasive or percutaneous surgical technique (M-OP) appears to be advantageous over the open surgical technique (O-OP), although studies show an increased rate of lesions of the sural nerve.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no consensus regarding the superiority of OP or N‑OP for acute ATR, as several studies conducted since the introduction of early mobilization protocols have shown similar results for these two interventions. Results and complications of M‑OP and O‑OP are also comparable. Considering the available data on the various surgical procedures, the authors prefer the M‑OP technique with adequate sural nerve protection for repair of acute ATR, combined with an early mobilization protocol.</p>","PeriodicalId":74375,"journal":{"name":"Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)","volume":" ","pages":"740-748"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-024-04556-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Achilles tendon is the strongest tendon in humans and is frequently injured, especially in the physically active young to middle-aged population. An increasing frequency of Achilles tendon ruptures (ATR) has been reported in several studies. However, there is no international consensus regarding possible non-operative (N-OP) or operative (surgical) treatment (OP).

Objectives: The aim of this article is to semi-quantitatively compare both treatment options for ATR by analyzing the results reported in the literature.

Material and methods: For this purpose, relevant categories were identified, and the literature was then evaluated in a PubMed analysis. Ten meta-analyses and two cost analyses were included. The data was extracted according to the categories and evaluated comparatively.

Results: OP and N‑OP for acute ATR can lead to equally good restitution of clinical function if early functional rehabilitation is applied. The lower re-rupture rate is an advantage of OP, whereas the lower general complications speak in favor of N‑OP. The minimally invasive or percutaneous surgical technique (M-OP) appears to be advantageous over the open surgical technique (O-OP), although studies show an increased rate of lesions of the sural nerve.

Conclusion: There is no consensus regarding the superiority of OP or N‑OP for acute ATR, as several studies conducted since the introduction of early mobilization protocols have shown similar results for these two interventions. Results and complications of M‑OP and O‑OP are also comparable. Considering the available data on the various surgical procedures, the authors prefer the M‑OP technique with adequate sural nerve protection for repair of acute ATR, combined with an early mobilization protocol.

[急性跟腱断裂的手术或非手术治疗:目前的文献是怎么说的?]
背景:跟腱是人类最强壮的肌腱,经常受伤,尤其是在运动量大的中青年人群中。一些研究报告称,跟腱断裂(ATR)的发生频率越来越高。然而,国际上尚未就非手术治疗(N-OP)或手术治疗(OP)达成共识:本文旨在通过分析文献报道的结果,对 ATR 的两种治疗方案进行半定量比较:为此,我们确定了相关类别,然后通过 PubMed 分析对文献进行了评估。其中包括十项荟萃分析和两项成本分析。根据分类提取数据并进行比较评估:结果:如果及早进行功能康复治疗,急性 ATR 的 OP 和 N-OP 可以同样好地恢复临床功能。OP的优势在于再破裂率较低,而N-OP的优势在于一般并发症较少。微创或经皮手术技术(M-OP)似乎比开放手术技术(O-OP)更有优势,尽管研究显示鞍神经的病变率有所增加:结论:关于急性 ATR 采用开放手术还是非开放手术的优越性,目前尚未达成共识,因为自早期动员方案推出以来,已有多项研究显示这两种干预方法的效果相似。M-OP和O-OP的结果和并发症也不相上下。考虑到各种手术方法的现有数据,作者更倾向于在充分保护鞍神经的情况下采用M-OP技术修复急性ATR,并结合早期活动方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信