A novel technique of isolated gastrocnemius recession: A cadaveric comparison with Strayer procedure
Background Strayer’s gastrocnemius recession is a common technique in treating ankle equinus of gastrocnemius origin. Nevertheless, this technique is associated with a few flaws. We aim to introduce a novel technique of isolated gastrocnemius recession and perform a cadaveric study to evaluate its s...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
SAGE Publishing
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/94ed1e595fda4d51882cb4ae46d40146 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Background Strayer’s gastrocnemius recession is a common technique in treating ankle equinus of gastrocnemius origin. Nevertheless, this technique is associated with a few flaws. We aim to introduce a novel technique of isolated gastrocnemius recession and perform a cadaveric study to evaluate its safety and at the same time compare this novel technique with the existing Strayer procedure biomechanically. Methods Eight fresh cadaveric models of gastrocnemius tightness were established by isolated traction of the gastrocnemius muscles. Gastrocnemius recession was performed on all eight models with Strayer method and the novel method randomized equally. The safety of both the techniques was evaluated by identifying any iatrogenic injury to the surrounding structures. The lengthening and improvement of the ankle dorsiflexion was measured and compared between the two techniques. Results There was no iatrogenic sural nerve or saphenous vein injury in all eight models. There was no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of lengthening (24.25 mm vs 21.00 mm; p = 0.838) and improvement of ankle dorsiflexion (26.5° vs 26°; p = .829). Conclusions Both Strayer technique and the novel technique of gastrocnemius recession lengthened the gastrocnemius and improved the ankle dorsiflexion in this cadaver trial. Both procedures were safe with proper techniques, and there was no significant difference in efficacy between them. Level of Evidence Level II, randomized controlled trial. |
|---|