Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Repair Using Ring Forceps for Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture

No difference in operative time, outcomes, cosmesis, or return to activity and/or sport after minimally invasive versus open repair of primary Achilles ruptures: a retrospective review

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes and the rate of return to sport among patients that have undergone minimally invasive repair versus open approach of an acute Achilles tendon rupture.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture at a single urban academic institution from 2017 to 2020 with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed retrospectively. Preinjury sport participation and preinjury work activity information, the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS), the Tegner Activity Scale, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System for mobility and pain interference were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 144 patients were initially included in the study. Of these, 63 patients were followed with a mean follow-up of 45.3 ± 29.2 months. The mean operative time did not significantly differ between groups (p = 0.938). Patients who underwent minimally invasive repair returned to sport at a rate of 88.9% at a mean of 10.6 ± 5.8 months, compared to return rate of open procedures of 83.7% at 9.5 ± 5.5 months. There were no significant differences in ATRS (p = 0.246), Tegner (p = 0.137) or VAS pain (p = 0.317) scores between groups. There was no difference in cosmetic satisfaction between PARS and open repair groups (88.4 vs. 76.0; p = 0.244).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent minimally invasive repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures demonstrate no significant differences with respect to cosmesis, operative time, patient-reported outcomes and the rate and level of return to activities when compared to an open approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Persistent Deficits after an Achilles Tendon Rupture: A Narrative Review

Persistent muscle weakness, tendon elongation, and incomplete return to preinjury level are frequent sequelae after acute Achilles tendon rupture, and evidence-based knowledge of how to best rehabilitate the injury is largely absent in the literature. The objective of this review is to illuminate and discuss to what extent an Achilles tendon rupture affects muscle, tendon, and function when assessed with the Achilles tendon total rupture score (ATRS), muscle strength, muscle cross-sectional area, tendon length, and the heel-rise test. The patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) data in the literature suggest that the recovery takes longer than 6 months (ATRS, 70 out of 100), that one-year postinjury, the ATRS only reaches 82, and that this does not appear to noticeably improve thereafter. Loss of muscle mass, strength, and function can in some cases be permanent. Over the first 6 months postinjury, the tendon undergoes elongation, which appears to be negatively correlated to heel-rise function. More recently, there has been some interest in how muscle length and excursion is related to the reduced function. The available literature indicates that further research is highly warranted and that efforts to restore normal tendon length may improve the likelihood of returning to preinjury level after an Achilles tendon rupture.

Mini-open Repair for Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture: Ring Forceps vs the Achillon Device

BACKGROUND

Repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture using the Achillon device is a representative mini-open repair technique; however, the limitations of this technique include the need for special instruments and decreased repair strength. A modified mini-open repair using ring forceps might overcome these limitations.

PURPOSE

To compare the Achillon device with ring forceps in mini-open repairs of acute Achilles tendon rupture.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Fifty patients (41 men and 9 women) with acute Achilles tendon rupture on 1 foot were consecutively treated using mini-open repair techniques. The first 20 patients were treated using the Achillon device (Achillon group), and the subsequent 30 were treated using a ring forceps (forceps group). Clinical, functional, and isokinetic results and postoperative complications were compared between the groups at the last follow-up. Clinical evaluations were performed using the AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) score, Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score, length of incision, and operation time. Functional evaluations included active range of motion of the ankle joint, maximum calf circumference, hopping test, and single-limb heel rise (SLHR). Isokinetic evaluations were performed using the isokinetic test for ankle plantar flexion.

RESULTS

The AOFAS score (P = .669), Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score (P = .753), and length of incision (P = .305) were not significantly different between the groups (mean ± SD, 90.1 ± 8.7, 88.3 ± 9.9, and 2.7 ± 0.3 cm in the Achillon group vs 92.2 ± 9.4, 89.9 ± 10.9, and 2.5 ± 0.4 cm in the forceps group, respectively). Operation times in the Achillon group were significantly shorter than those in the forceps group (41.4 ± 9.6 vs 62.8 ± 14.1 minutes, P < .001). The maximum height of the SLHR (P = .042) and the number of SLHRs (P = .043) in the forceps group (79.7% ± 7.4% and 72.9% ± 10.2%) were significantly greater than those in the Achillon group (75.3% ± 7.1% and 66.7% ± 11.0%). No significant differences were detected between the groups in mean peak torques for plantar flexion at angular speeds of 30 deg/s (P = .185) and 120 deg/s (P = .271). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative complications between the groups (P = .093).

CONCLUSION

The ring forceps technique is comparable to the Achillon technique with respect to clinical, functional, and isokinetic results and postoperative complications. Given that no special instrument is required, the ring forceps technique could be a better option for acute Achilles tendon rupture repair.

Comparison of mini-open repair system and percutaneous repair for acute Achilles tendon rupture

Background

To reduce incision complications, minimally invasive operative approaches for treatment with acute Achilles tendon rupture have been developed, such as Mini-open repair and percutaneous repair. Which technique is the better surgical option? In the present study, we compared the two surgical procedures— modified Mini-open repair versus percutaneous repair—in the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture.

Methods

From January 2016 to November 2018, 68 matched patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture were divided into treatment group (Mini-open with modified Ma-Griffith technique) and control group (the Ma–Griffith technique). The patients were then treated with different surgical techniques and followed up for no less than 24 months, and the functional outcome scores and complications were retrospectively evaluated.

Results

The mean follow-up time in Mini-open repair group was 29.0±2.9 months, and that in control group was 27.9±2.9 months (P=0.147). The Mini-open repair group showed reliably higher American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score and Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS) than the control group in functional assessment (95.0±3.8 vs. 92.3±5.3, P=0.000; 93.8±3.8 vs. 90.9±4.5,P=0.000). There was no cases of sural nerve injury in Mini-open repair group, whereas the percutaneous repair group had 5 cases of the same (P=0.027). No significant differences were found in the calf circumference (32.3±3.9 vs. 31.8±3.6) (P=0.564), range of motion of the ankle (51.3±4.8 vs. 50.5±4.2, P=0.362), or wound complications (34/0 vs. 34/0) (P=1.000) between the two groups at the end of the follow-up time. However, the percutaneous repair group had a shorter average operating time (23.1±5.2 min) than that of the Mini-open repair group (27.7±4.3 min) (P=0.000).

Conclusions

Acute Achilles tendon ruptures may be treated successfully with a new Mini-open repair system or percutaneous repair technique. However, the Mini-open repair system may represent a superior surgical option, since it offers advantages in terms of direct visual control of the repair, AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score, Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score and risk of sural nerve palsy.

Study design

Case-control studies, Level of evidence, 3.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04802-8.