• Jeong-Kil Lee, Chan Kang, Deuk-Soo Hwang, Dong-Hun Kang, Gi-Soo Lee, Jung-Mo Hwang, Jae-Hwang Song, and Cheol-Won Lee.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.
• J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2020 Jan 1; 28 (1): 2309499020910274.

PurposeThere is no definitive consensus on the optimal treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. We comparatively analyzed the clinical outcomes of two types of repair surgeries in treating Achilles tendon rupture.MethodsThis retrospective study included 12 patients of Achilles tendon rupture (group A) treated with ultrasound-guided percutaneous repair and 18 patients (group B) treated with open repair. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Arner-Lindholm scale, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, Achilles Tendon Total Rupture score (ATRS), visual analog scale, time to single heel raise, bilateral calf circumferences, recovery of athletic ability, and other complications.ResultsWhile the Arner-Lindholm scale, AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score, ATRS, time point when single heel raise was possible, differences in bilateral calf circumference, and recovery of athletic ability compared to pre-rupture level were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.999, 0.235, 0.357, 0.645, 0.497, and 0.881, respectively), overall and aesthetic satisfaction levels were higher in the group treated with percutaneous repair under ultrasonography guidance (p = 0.035 and 0.001, respectively). Overall, there were no cases involving sural nerve injury in either group.ConclusionInnovative percutaneous repair provides not only similar clinical outcomes but also greater overall and aesthetic satisfaction levels of operative outcomes and minimal complications (i.e. sural nerve injury) compared to open repair surgeries. Therefore, percutaneous repair may be a useful technique in the treatment of Achilles tendon rupture.

25 keywords...

hide…