跟腱中间体撕裂修复后的结果:经皮无结修复与开放式修复。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Ingrid K Stake, Lauren M Matheny, Spencer M Comfort, Grant J Dornan, C Thomas Haytmanek, Thomas O Clanton
{"title":"跟腱中间体撕裂修复后的结果:经皮无结修复与开放式修复。","authors":"Ingrid K Stake,&nbsp;Lauren M Matheny,&nbsp;Spencer M Comfort,&nbsp;Grant J Dornan,&nbsp;C Thomas Haytmanek,&nbsp;Thomas O Clanton","doi":"10.1177/10711007231160998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Optimum treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture results in high mechanical strength, low risk of complications, and return to preinjury activity level. Percutaneous knotless repair is a minimally invasive technique with promising results in biomechanical studies, but few comparison clinical studies exist. Our study purpose was to compare functional outcomes and revision rates following acute Achilles tendon rupture treated between percutaneous knotless repair and open repair techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients 18 years or older with an acute Achilles tendon rupture, treated by a single surgeon with either open repair or percutaneous knotless repair, and more than 2 years after surgery were assessed for eligibility. Prospective clinical data were obtained from the data registry and standard electronic medical record. Additionally, the patients were contacted to obtain current follow-up questionnaires. Primary outcome measure was Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) activities of daily living (ADL). Secondary outcome measures were FAAM sports, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Tegner activity scale, patient satisfaction with outcome, complications, and revisions. Postoperative follow-up closest to 5 years was used in this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 61 patients were included in the study. Twenty-four of 29 patients (83%) in the open repair group and 28 of 32 patients (88%) in the percutaneous knotless repair group completed the questionnaires with average follow-up of 5.8 years and 4.2 years, respectively. We found no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or patient satisfaction between groups (FAAM ADL: 99 vs 99 points, <i>P</i> = .99). Operative time was slightly longer in the percutaneous knotless repair group (46 vs 52 minutes, <i>P</i> = .02). Two patients in the open group required revision surgery compared to no patients in the percutaneous group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our study, we did not find significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or patient satisfaction by treating Achilles tendon midsubstance ruptures with percutaneous knotless vs open repair.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IlI, retrospective cohort study.</p>","PeriodicalId":12446,"journal":{"name":"Foot & Ankle International","volume":"44 6","pages":"499-507"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes Following Repair of Achilles Midsubstance Tears: Percutaneous Knotless Repair vs Open Repair.\",\"authors\":\"Ingrid K Stake,&nbsp;Lauren M Matheny,&nbsp;Spencer M Comfort,&nbsp;Grant J Dornan,&nbsp;C Thomas Haytmanek,&nbsp;Thomas O Clanton\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10711007231160998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Optimum treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture results in high mechanical strength, low risk of complications, and return to preinjury activity level. Percutaneous knotless repair is a minimally invasive technique with promising results in biomechanical studies, but few comparison clinical studies exist. Our study purpose was to compare functional outcomes and revision rates following acute Achilles tendon rupture treated between percutaneous knotless repair and open repair techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients 18 years or older with an acute Achilles tendon rupture, treated by a single surgeon with either open repair or percutaneous knotless repair, and more than 2 years after surgery were assessed for eligibility. Prospective clinical data were obtained from the data registry and standard electronic medical record. Additionally, the patients were contacted to obtain current follow-up questionnaires. Primary outcome measure was Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) activities of daily living (ADL). Secondary outcome measures were FAAM sports, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Tegner activity scale, patient satisfaction with outcome, complications, and revisions. Postoperative follow-up closest to 5 years was used in this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 61 patients were included in the study. Twenty-four of 29 patients (83%) in the open repair group and 28 of 32 patients (88%) in the percutaneous knotless repair group completed the questionnaires with average follow-up of 5.8 years and 4.2 years, respectively. We found no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or patient satisfaction between groups (FAAM ADL: 99 vs 99 points, <i>P</i> = .99). Operative time was slightly longer in the percutaneous knotless repair group (46 vs 52 minutes, <i>P</i> = .02). Two patients in the open group required revision surgery compared to no patients in the percutaneous group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our study, we did not find significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or patient satisfaction by treating Achilles tendon midsubstance ruptures with percutaneous knotless vs open repair.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IlI, retrospective cohort study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foot & Ankle International\",\"volume\":\"44 6\",\"pages\":\"499-507\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foot & Ankle International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007231160998\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & Ankle International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007231160998","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:急性跟腱断裂的最佳治疗方法具有机械强度高、并发症风险低、恢复损伤前活动水平的特点。经皮无结修复术是一种微创技术,在生物力学研究中具有良好的效果,但临床比较研究较少。我们的研究目的是比较急性跟腱断裂经皮无结修复技术和开放式修复技术治疗后的功能结果和修复率。方法:18岁或以上的急性跟腱断裂患者,由单一外科医生进行开放修复或经皮无结修复,术后超过2年评估其资格。前瞻性临床数据来自数据登记和标准电子病历。此外,还联系了患者以获得当前的随访问卷。主要结局指标为足踝能力测量(FAAM)和日常生活活动(ADL)。次要结果测量是FAAM运动、12项简短健康调查(SF-12)、Tegner活动量表、患者对结果的满意度、并发症和修订。本研究采用近5年的术后随访。结果:共纳入61例患者。开放式修复组29例患者中有24例(83%)完成了问卷调查,经皮无结修复组32例患者中有28例(88%)完成了问卷调查,平均随访时间分别为5.8年和4.2年。我们发现两组患者报告的结果或患者满意度没有显著差异(FAAM ADL: 99分vs 99分,P = 0.99)。经皮无结修复组手术时间稍长(46分钟vs 52分钟,P = 0.02)。开放组有2例患者需要翻修手术,而经皮组没有患者需要翻修手术。结论:在我们的研究中,我们没有发现经皮无结与开放修复治疗跟腱中间物质断裂在患者报告的结果或患者满意度上有显著差异。证据水平:IlI级,回顾性队列研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes Following Repair of Achilles Midsubstance Tears: Percutaneous Knotless Repair vs Open Repair.

Background: Optimum treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture results in high mechanical strength, low risk of complications, and return to preinjury activity level. Percutaneous knotless repair is a minimally invasive technique with promising results in biomechanical studies, but few comparison clinical studies exist. Our study purpose was to compare functional outcomes and revision rates following acute Achilles tendon rupture treated between percutaneous knotless repair and open repair techniques.

Methods: Patients 18 years or older with an acute Achilles tendon rupture, treated by a single surgeon with either open repair or percutaneous knotless repair, and more than 2 years after surgery were assessed for eligibility. Prospective clinical data were obtained from the data registry and standard electronic medical record. Additionally, the patients were contacted to obtain current follow-up questionnaires. Primary outcome measure was Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) activities of daily living (ADL). Secondary outcome measures were FAAM sports, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), Tegner activity scale, patient satisfaction with outcome, complications, and revisions. Postoperative follow-up closest to 5 years was used in this study.

Results: In total, 61 patients were included in the study. Twenty-four of 29 patients (83%) in the open repair group and 28 of 32 patients (88%) in the percutaneous knotless repair group completed the questionnaires with average follow-up of 5.8 years and 4.2 years, respectively. We found no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or patient satisfaction between groups (FAAM ADL: 99 vs 99 points, P = .99). Operative time was slightly longer in the percutaneous knotless repair group (46 vs 52 minutes, P = .02). Two patients in the open group required revision surgery compared to no patients in the percutaneous group.

Conclusion: In our study, we did not find significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or patient satisfaction by treating Achilles tendon midsubstance ruptures with percutaneous knotless vs open repair.

Level of evidence: Level IlI, retrospective cohort study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Foot & Ankle International
Foot & Ankle International 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
144
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Foot & Ankle International (FAI), in publication since 1980, is the official journal of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS). This monthly medical journal emphasizes surgical and medical management as it relates to the foot and ankle with a specific focus on reconstructive, trauma, and sports-related conditions utilizing the latest technological advances. FAI offers original, clinically oriented, peer-reviewed research articles presenting new approaches to foot and ankle pathology and treatment, current case reviews, and technique tips addressing the management of complex problems. This journal is an ideal resource for highly-trained orthopaedic foot and ankle specialists and allied health care providers. The journal’s Founding Editor, Melvin H. Jahss, MD (deceased), served from 1980-1988. He was followed by Kenneth A. Johnson, MD (deceased) from 1988-1993; Lowell D. Lutter, MD (deceased) from 1993-2004; and E. Greer Richardson, MD from 2005-2007. David B. Thordarson, MD, assumed the role of Editor-in-Chief in 2008. The journal focuses on the following areas of interest: • Surgery • Wound care • Bone healing • Pain management • In-office orthotic systems • Diabetes • Sports medicine
×
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