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, Lauren M Matheny, Spencer M Comfort, Grant J Dornan, C Thomas Haytmanek, 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, Lauren M Matheny, Spencer M Comfort, Grant J Dornan, C Thomas Haytmanek, 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}
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.
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