Abstract

Purpose: We investigated whether percutaneous suturing of Achilles tendon ruptures showed better results and superiority in terms of clinical outcomes when compared to open suturing. Methods: We conducted a case-control study. Between 2009 and 2014, we performed surgical revisions of closed acute Achilles tendon ruptures in our hospital in 146 patients, of which 71 patients (2012-2014) received percutaneous suturing using Dresden instruments, and 75 patients (2009-2012) underwent open suturing. After a minimum period of 1 year post surgery, we performed clinical follow-up in 25 patients of each of the groups using the AOFAS hind foot score and the SF-12 questionnaire. Furthermore, we implemented a clinical questionnaire with a reference population of 200 healthy individuals. Results: Mean age in the total population of 146 patients was 47 years (range 21 to 83 years) at the time of surgery. The duration of the surgical procedure with percutaneous suturing was significantly shorter (24 versus 43 minutes, p ollow-up, no significant differences between the two groups were observed in terms of descriptive parameters. Furthermore, ultrasound examinations of both follow-up populations did not show any significant difference. From a clinical perspective, the good to very good results achieved with open suturing (as measured with the AOFAS hind foot score and the SF-12 questionnaire) have not been significantly improved with percutaneous suturing. The additional use of a new clinical score (with the reference population) demonstrated good to very good consistency with the established scores. Conclusion: In our population, percutaneous Achilles tendon suturing showed significantly lower complication rates and significantly shorter procedure times when compared to open suturing. However, percutaneous suturing did not show clinical improvements of the good to very good results that were achieved with open suturing (as measured with the AOFAS back foot score and the SF-12 questionnaire). The implementation of a new and simple score for the clinical evaluation of Achilles tendon injuries resulted in good to very good consistency with the established questionnaires and, thus, offered a straightforward and rapid alternative when compared to the more elaborate scores.

Highlights

  • Due to the increasing level of activity in elderly populations, Achilles tendon rupture is a common injury [1] with an incidence of 6 - 21.5/100,000 [1] [2]

  • We evaluated the difference in clinical outcomes after open Achilles tendon revision [6] compared to the minimally invasive percutaneous technique described by Amlang et al [7]

  • All patients in the hospital information system were identified who were diagnosed with acute Achilles tendon rupture between 2009 and 2014, and who underwent surgery, either using open revision following the technique described by Kirchmayer und Kessler [6] [10] [11] or percutaneous suturing using Dresden instruments [7]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Due to the increasing level of activity in elderly populations, Achilles tendon rupture is a common injury [1] with an incidence of 6 - 21.5/100,000 [1] [2]. We evaluated the difference in clinical outcomes after open Achilles tendon revision [6] compared to the minimally invasive percutaneous technique described by Amlang et al [7]. Evaluation was performed using the SF-12 questionnaire and the AOFAS hind foot score [8] [9]. We implemented a new clinical score for the future assessment of surgical outcome in patients who were not able to return to the hospital for clinical follow-up

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call