Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair

Background: There is no current consensus on whether to use an open or minimally invasive (MIS) approach for Achilles tendon repair after acute rupture. We hypothesized that patients in both open and MIS groups would have improved patient-reported outcome scores using the PROMIS system postoperative...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Kristin C. Caolo BA, Stephanie K. Eble BA, Carson Rider MD, Andrew J. Elliott MD, Constantine A. Demetracopoulos MD, Jonathan T. Deland MD, Mark C. Drakos MD, Scott J. Ellis MD
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	SAGE Publishing 2021
Materias:	Orthopedic surgery RD701-811
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/9e1f1b294e5c433db28536ad799bb136
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:9e1f1b294e5c433db28536ad799bb136
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:9e1f1b294e5c433db28536ad799bb1362021-12-02T00:33:25ZClinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair2473-011410.1177/24730114211060063https://doaj.org/article/9e1f1b294e5c433db28536ad799bb1362021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1177/24730114211060063https://doaj.org/toc/2473-0114Background: There is no current consensus on whether to use an open or minimally invasive (MIS) approach for Achilles tendon repair after acute rupture. We hypothesized that patients in both open and MIS groups would have improved patient-reported outcome scores using the PROMIS system postoperatively, but that there would be minimal differences in these scores and complication rates between operative techniques. Methods: A total of 185 patients who underwent surgery for an acute, unilateral Achilles tendon rupture between January 2016 and June 2019, with minimum 1-year follow-up were included in the cohort studied. The minimally invasive group was defined by use of a commercially available minimally invasive device through a smaller surgical incision (n=118). The open repair group did not use the device, and suture repair was performed through larger surgical incisions (n=67). Postoperative protocols were similar between groups. Preoperative and postoperative PROMIS scores were collected prospectively through our institution’s registry. Demographics and complications were recorded. Results: PROMIS scores overall improved in both study groups after operative repair. No significant differences in postoperative PROMIS scores were observed between the open and MIS repair groups. There were also no significant differences in complication rates between groups. Overall, 19.5% of patients in the MIS group had at least 1 postoperative complication (8.5% deep vein thrombosis [DVT], 3.3% rerupture, 1.7% sural nerve injury, 2.5% infection), compared to 16.4% in the open group (9.0% DVT, 1.5% rerupture, 1.5% sural nerve injury, 0% infection). Conclusion: Patients undergoing either minimally invasive or open Achilles tendon repair after acute rupture have similar PROMIS outcomes and complication types and incidences. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.Kristin C. Caolo BAStephanie K. Eble BACarson Rider MDAndrew J. Elliott MDConstantine A. Demetracopoulos MDJonathan T. Deland MDMark C. Drakos MDScott J. Ellis MDSAGE PublishingarticleOrthopedic surgeryRD701-811ENFoot & Ankle Orthopaedics, Vol 6 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Orthopedic surgery RD701-811
spellingShingle	Orthopedic surgery RD701-811 Kristin C. Caolo BA Stephanie K. Eble BA Carson Rider MD Andrew J. Elliott MD Constantine A. Demetracopoulos MD Jonathan T. Deland MD Mark C. Drakos MD Scott J. Ellis MD Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair
description	Background: There is no current consensus on whether to use an open or minimally invasive (MIS) approach for Achilles tendon repair after acute rupture. We hypothesized that patients in both open and MIS groups would have improved patient-reported outcome scores using the PROMIS system postoperatively, but that there would be minimal differences in these scores and complication rates between operative techniques. Methods: A total of 185 patients who underwent surgery for an acute, unilateral Achilles tendon rupture between January 2016 and June 2019, with minimum 1-year follow-up were included in the cohort studied. The minimally invasive group was defined by use of a commercially available minimally invasive device through a smaller surgical incision (n=118). The open repair group did not use the device, and suture repair was performed through larger surgical incisions (n=67). Postoperative protocols were similar between groups. Preoperative and postoperative PROMIS scores were collected prospectively through our institution’s registry. Demographics and complications were recorded. Results: PROMIS scores overall improved in both study groups after operative repair. No significant differences in postoperative PROMIS scores were observed between the open and MIS repair groups. There were also no significant differences in complication rates between groups. Overall, 19.5% of patients in the MIS group had at least 1 postoperative complication (8.5% deep vein thrombosis [DVT], 3.3% rerupture, 1.7% sural nerve injury, 2.5% infection), compared to 16.4% in the open group (9.0% DVT, 1.5% rerupture, 1.5% sural nerve injury, 0% infection). Conclusion: Patients undergoing either minimally invasive or open Achilles tendon repair after acute rupture have similar PROMIS outcomes and complication types and incidences. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
format	article
author	Kristin C. Caolo BA Stephanie K. Eble BA Carson Rider MD Andrew J. Elliott MD Constantine A. Demetracopoulos MD Jonathan T. Deland MD Mark C. Drakos MD Scott J. Ellis MD
author_facet	Kristin C. Caolo BA Stephanie K. Eble BA Carson Rider MD Andrew J. Elliott MD Constantine A. Demetracopoulos MD Jonathan T. Deland MD Mark C. Drakos MD Scott J. Ellis MD
author_sort	Kristin C. Caolo BA
title	Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair
title_short	Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair
title_full	Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair
title_fullStr	Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair
title_full_unstemmed	Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair
title_sort	clinical outcomes and complications with open vs minimally invasive achilles tendon repair
publisher	SAGE Publishing
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/9e1f1b294e5c433db28536ad799bb136
work_keys_str_mv	AT kristinccaoloba clinicaloutcomesandcomplicationswithopenvsminimallyinvasiveachillestendonrepair AT stephaniekebleba clinicaloutcomesandcomplicationswithopenvsminimallyinvasiveachillestendonrepair AT carsonridermd clinicaloutcomesandcomplicationswithopenvsminimallyinvasiveachillestendonrepair AT andrewjelliottmd clinicaloutcomesandcomplicationswithopenvsminimallyinvasiveachillestendonrepair AT constantineademetracopoulosmd clinicaloutcomesandcomplicationswithopenvsminimallyinvasiveachillestendonrepair AT jonathantdelandmd clinicaloutcomesandcomplicationswithopenvsminimallyinvasiveachillestendonrepair AT markcdrakosmd clinicaloutcomesandcomplicationswithopenvsminimallyinvasiveachillestendonrepair AT scottjellismd clinicaloutcomesandcomplicationswithopenvsminimallyinvasiveachillestendonrepair
_version_	1718403693960757248

Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair

Ejemplares similares