Percutaneous versus open repair of the ruptured Achilles tendon: a comparative study.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Controversy regarding the optimal treatment of the fresh total Achilles tendon rupture remains. PURPOSE To compare the results of percutaneous and open Achilles tendon repair. STUDY DESIGN Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS The results of 132 consecutive patients with acute complete Achilles tendon rupture who were operated on exclusively with modified percutaneous repair under local anesthesia from 1991 to 1997 and followed up for at least 2 years were compared to the results of 105 consecutive patients who were operated on exclusively with open repair under general or spinal anesthesia in the same period. RESULTS There were significantly fewer major complications in the group of percutaneous repairs in comparison with the group of open repairs (4.5% vs 12.4%; P = .03), particularly necrosis (0% vs 5.6%; P = .019), and a lower total number of complications (9.7% vs 21%; P = .013). There were slightly more reruptures (3.7% vs 2.8%; P = .680) and sural nerve disturbances (4.5% vs 2.8%; P = .487) in the group of percutaneous repairs, with no statistically significant difference. Functional assessment using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scale and the Holz score showed no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSION The results of the study support the choice of (modified) percutaneous suturing under local anesthesia as the method that brings comparable functional results to open repair, with a significantly lower rate of complications.

0200400'06'07'08'09'10'11'12'13'14'15'16'17
Citations per Year

1,603 Citations

Semantic Scholar estimates that this publication has 1,603 citations based on the available data.

See our FAQ for additional information.

Cite this paper

@article{retnik2005PercutaneousVO, title={Percutaneous versus open repair of the ruptured Achilles tendon: a comparative study.}, author={Andrej {\vC}retnik and Milo{\vs} Kosanovi{\'c} and Vladimir Smrkolj}, journal={The American journal of sports medicine}, year={2005}, volume={33 9}, pages={1369-79} }