Short-term Outcomes of Open “Crown” Type v. Percutaneous Bunnell Type Repair of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures. Randomized Control Study

A. Makulavičius, G. Mazarevičius, P. Masionis, Matas Urmanavičius, M. Klinga, V. Uvarovas, N. Porvaneckas
{"title":"Short-term Outcomes of Open “Crown” Type v. Percutaneous Bunnell Type Repair of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures. Randomized Control Study","authors":"A. Makulavičius, G. Mazarevičius, P. Masionis, Matas Urmanavičius, M. Klinga, V. Uvarovas, N. Porvaneckas","doi":"10.15388/lietchirur.2020.19.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. The optimal treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures is still under debate. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate outcomes of open repair comparing with percutaneous procedure for Achilles tendon ruptures. Methods. 100 patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture were randomized in two groups: open “crown” type (group A) and percutaneous Bunnell type repair (group B). Absorbable suture was used in both groups. 87 patients were available for the mean follow up of 6 months. Results. No statistically significant difference was observed between groups in ATRS (Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score), leg circumference, single heel rise, Achilles resting angle, time back to work and sports and overall patient satisfaction. Percutaneous technique was much faster. Overall 13 complications occurred in both groups (5 and 8 respectively). No deep infection occurred, no revisions were needed. Conclusions. Both techniques showed to be effective and safe when using absorbable suture material with a high patient satisfaction and a low complication rate, but percutaneous repair was significantly faster.","PeriodicalId":52926,"journal":{"name":"Lietuvos Chirurgija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lietuvos Chirurgija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/lietchirur.2020.19.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. The optimal treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures is still under debate. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate outcomes of open repair comparing with percutaneous procedure for Achilles tendon ruptures. Methods. 100 patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture were randomized in two groups: open “crown” type (group A) and percutaneous Bunnell type repair (group B). Absorbable suture was used in both groups. 87 patients were available for the mean follow up of 6 months. Results. No statistically significant difference was observed between groups in ATRS (Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score), leg circumference, single heel rise, Achilles resting angle, time back to work and sports and overall patient satisfaction. Percutaneous technique was much faster. Overall 13 complications occurred in both groups (5 and 8 respectively). No deep infection occurred, no revisions were needed. Conclusions. Both techniques showed to be effective and safe when using absorbable suture material with a high patient satisfaction and a low complication rate, but percutaneous repair was significantly faster.
开放式“冠”型与经皮Bunnell型修复急性跟腱断裂的近期疗效。随机对照研究
背景。急性跟腱断裂的最佳治疗方法仍在争论中。本随机对照试验的目的是评价开放修复与经皮手术治疗跟腱断裂的效果。方法:将100例急性跟腱断裂患者随机分为开放“冠”式(A组)和经皮Bunnell式(B组)两组,两组均采用可吸收缝线。87例患者平均随访6个月。结果。两组间在ATRS(跟腱总断裂评分)、腿围、单跟上升、跟腱静息角、恢复工作和运动时间以及患者总体满意度方面均无统计学差异。经皮技术要快得多。两组共发生并发症13例(分别为5例和8例)。无深部感染发生,无需翻修。结论。当使用可吸收缝线材料时,两种技术均有效且安全,患者满意度高,并发症发生率低,但经皮修复明显更快。
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
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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