Suture Anchor Versus Allogenic Tendon Suture in Treatment of Haglund Syndrome

Single-Row Repair Versus Double-Row Repair in the Surgical Management of Achilles Insertional Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review

Background

Approximately 6% of people will report Achilles tendon pain during their lifetime, and one-third of these individuals will have Achilles insertional tendinopathy (AIT). For patients who have failed conservative treatment, surgical repair is performed. Achilles tendon repair can occur through various techniques, including a single-row or double-row repair.

Purpose

To determine if there are significant advantages to double-row repair over single-row repair with respect to biomechanical and clinical outcomes.

Study design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. An electronic search of the EMBASE and PubMed databases was performed for all studies related to surgical treatment of AIT, which yielded 1431 unique results. These included both biomechanical and clinical studies. Clinical studies in which patients were not diagnosed with AIT, underwent surgery for repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture, or studies that included additional procedures such as a concomitant flexor hallucis longus transfer were excluded. Eligible studies were independently screened by 2 reviewers. A risk-of-bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions and risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials tools.

Results

A total of 23 studies were included, 4 of which were biomechanical studies and 19 were clinical studies. Biomechanical comparison found that there was a significant advantage to using double-row versus single-row fixation with respect to load at yield (354.7 N vs 198.7 N; P = .01) and mean peak load (433.9 N vs 212 N; P = .042). There was no significant difference between double-row and single-row repair with respect to load to failure. Significant heterogeneity of the studies did not allow for a statistical comparison of the clinical outcomes between double-row and single-row repairs.

Conclusion

Although biomechanical studies favor double-row repair for AIT, the current data available on the clinical outcomes are not sufficient to determine if there is a clinical advantage of double-row repair. Larger, prospective randomized controlled trials utilizing validated outcome measures are needed to further elucidate whether the biomechanical advantages associated with double-row repair also translate into improved patient-reported outcomes.

Surgical Treatment of Haglund’s Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Posterosuperior calcaneal prominence, also known as Haglund’s deformity, can often lead to retrocalcaneal bursitis, a significant cause of posterior heel pain. Surgery is indicated for symptomatic patients, after a period of conservative treatment including analgesia, physiotherapy, activity, and shoe wear modification has failed. Surgical options include both open and endoscopic techniques, and typically involve excision of the retrocalcaneal bursa, resection of the calcaneal prominence, and debridement of the diseased Achilles tendon.

This article aims to provide an evidence-based literature review for the surgical management of Haglund’s deformity. A comprehensive evidence-based literature review of the PubMed database conducted in July 2021 identified 20 relevant articles assessing the efficacy of surgical modalities for Haglund’s deformity. The 20 studies were assigned to a level of evidence (I-IV). Individual studies were reviewed to provide a grade of recommendation (A-C, I) according to the Wright classification in support of or against the surgical modality. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed for the 20 studies.

The results show that both open and endoscopic surgical modalities are efficacious in the treatment of Haglund’s deformity, significantly improving functional outcome scores such as American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores and patient satisfaction post-operatively. Endoscopic surgery appears to have the advantage of shorter operative times, lower complication rates, and better cosmesis. More studies are required to further validate and optimize these surgical techniques.