Comparison of channel-assisted minimally invasive repair and 3 common Achilles tendon restoration techniques

Open and Percutaneous Approaches Have Similar Biomechanical Results for Primary Midsubstance Achilles Tendon Repair: A Meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the biomechanical properties of open versus percutaneous Achilles tendon repair.

Methods

A systematic review of original research articles was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. To qualify for study inclusion, articles were required to be published in English, use a laboratory design using either human or animal tissue, and directly compare the biomechanical properties of open Achilles repair using a Krackow or Kessler technique with percutaneous repair using either a locking or nonlocking suture construct. The biomechanical outcomes evaluated were displacement (millimeters) and load to failure (Newtons).

Results

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, including 234 specimens (open: 97, percutaneous locking: 73; percutaneous nonlocking: 64) that underwent primary midsubstance Achilles tendon repair. Pooled analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in displacement (P = .240) or load to failure (P = .912) between the open and percutaneous techniques. Among the percutaneous approaches, there was no difference in displacement (P = .109) between the locking and nonlocking tendon repair systems.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that both open and percutaneous techniques are biomechanically viable approaches for primary midsubstance Achilles tendon repair.

Clinical Relevance

In clinical studies, similar rerupture rates have been observed after open or percutaneous Achilles tendon repair. It may be beneficial for surgeons to understand whether biomechanical differences exist between these repair techniques.

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.