Heidi Haapasalo1, Ulla Peltoniemi2,3, Heikki-Jussi Laine2, Pekka Kannus4, Ville M Mattila2,5,6. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. heidi.haapasalo@uta.fi. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. 3. Satakunta District Hospital, Pori, Finland. 4. Injury and Osteoporosis Research Center, UKK Institute, Tampere, Finland. 5. The School of Medicine, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. 6. COXA Hospital for Joint Replacement, Tampere, Finland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A treatment protocol favouring non-operative treatment and based on early weight-bearing and early range-of-motion exercises was implemented in standard clinical care of a level I trauma clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients treated due to acute Achilles tendon rupture between 2008 and 2014 were included in the study (n = 411). The patient records were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 47 (range 17-88) years. In total, 213 (52%) acute Achilles tendon ruptures were treated operatively and 198 (48%) non-operatively. The annual proportion of operatively treated patients declined from 70 to 21% during the study period. The traumatic re-rupture rate was similar between the operative (4%) and the non-operative (6%) treatment groups (p = 0.385), even though the patients in the non-operative group were significantly older and had more co-morbidities than the operatively treated patients. Of the operatively treated patients, 10% (n = 21) had wound healing problems. In 6/198 patients, the non-operative treatment had to be converted to surgical treatment in the early phase. Unsatisfactory functional outcome after the treatment was reported in 7/213 patients in the operative and 10/198 in the non-operative group (p = 0.234). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that it is possible to implement a standardised treatment protocol to guide the decision-making and treatment and of an acute Achilles tendon rupture as a part of the daily care in a large standard trauma hospital. The clinical outcome and the rate of complications were fully comparable to the good clinical results achieved in RCT-study settings despite the heterogeneity of the treated patients and non-specialisation of the medical staff, showing that the protocol could find the most reasonable treatment for each patient and reduced dramatically the rate of operative treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative series.
INTRODUCTION: A treatment protocol favouring non-operative treatment and based on early weight-bearing and early range-of-motion exercises was implemented in standard clinical care of a level I trauma clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients treated due to acute Achilles tendon rupture between 2008 and 2014 were included in the study (n = 411). The patient records were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 47 (range 17-88) years. In total, 213 (52%) acute Achilles tendon ruptures were treated operatively and 198 (48%) non-operatively. The annual proportion of operatively treated patients declined from 70 to 21% during the study period. The traumatic re-rupture rate was similar between the operative (4%) and the non-operative (6%) treatment groups (p = 0.385), even though the patients in the non-operative group were significantly older and had more co-morbidities than the operatively treated patients. Of the operatively treated patients, 10% (n = 21) had wound healing problems. In 6/198 patients, the non-operative treatment had to be converted to surgical treatment in the early phase. Unsatisfactory functional outcome after the treatment was reported in 7/213 patients in the operative and 10/198 in the non-operative group (p = 0.234). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that it is possible to implement a standardised treatment protocol to guide the decision-making and treatment and of an acute Achilles tendon rupture as a part of the daily care in a large standard trauma hospital. The clinical outcome and the rate of complications were fully comparable to the good clinical results achieved in RCT-study settings despite the heterogeneity of the treated patients and non-specialisation of the medical staff, showing that the protocol could find the most reasonable treatment for each patient and reduced dramatically the rate of operative treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative series.