Literature DB >> 30480601

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Repair for Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture: Meta-Analysis Showing Reduced Complications, with Similar Outcomes, After Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Alberto Grassi1,2, Annunziato Amendola3, Kristian Samuelsson4, Eleonor Svantesson4, Matteo Romagnoli2, Alice Bondi2, Massimiliano Mosca2, Stefano Zaffagnini1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the optimal technique for repairing an acute Achilles tendon rupture. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the complications, subjective outcomes, and functional results between minimally invasive surgery and open repair of an Achilles tendon rupture.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EBSCOhost, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing minimally invasive surgery and open repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. A meta-analysis was performed, while bias and the quality of the evidence were rated according to the Cochrane Database questionnaire and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS: Eight studies, with 182 patients treated with minimally invasive surgery and 176 treated with open repair, were included. The meta-analysis showed a significantly decreased risk ratio (RR) of 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 0.40, p = 0.00001) for overall complications and 0.15 (95% CI = 0.05 to 0.46, p = 0.0009) for wound infection after minimally invasive surgery. Patients treated with minimally invasive surgery were more likely to report good or excellent subjective results (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.33, p = 0.009). No differences between groups were found with respect to reruptures, sural nerve injury, return to preinjury activity level, time to return to work, or ankle range of motion. The overall quality of evidence was generally low because of a substantial risk of bias, heterogeneity, indirectness of outcome reporting, and evaluation of a limited number of patients.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a significantly decreased risk of postoperative complications, especially wound infection, when acute Achilles tendon rupture was treated with minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery. Patients treated with minimally invasive surgery were significantly more likely to report a good or excellent subjective outcome. Current evidence is associated with high heterogeneity and a considerable risk of bias. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30480601     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01364

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  10 in total

1.  Prospective randomized clinical trial of open operative, minimally invasive and conservative treatments of acute Achilles tendon tear.

Authors:  Sebastian Fischer; Christin Colcuc; Yves Gramlich; Thomas Stein; Ahmed Abdulazim; Stephanie von Welck; Reinhard Hoffmann
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  A qualitative assessment of return to sport following Achilles tendon repair.

Authors:  Joshua G Peterson; Vehniah K Tjong; Mitesh P Mehta; Bailey N Goyette; Milap Patel; Anish R Kadakia
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-12-24

3.  Endoscopically assisted reconstruction of chronic Achilles tendon ruptures and re-ruptures using a semitendinosus autograft is a viable alternative to pre-existing techniques.

Authors:  Niklas Nilsson; Baldvin Gunnarsson; Michael R Carmont; Annelie Brorsson; Jón Karlsson; Katarina Nilsson Helander
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 4.114

4.  Management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a survey of Army orthopaedic surgeons.

Authors:  Nischal Nadig; Thomas Dowd; Jeannie Huh
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Similar Efficacy of Arthroscopy and Arthrotomy in Infection Eradication in the Treatment of Septic Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Zhimin Liang; Xiaofan Deng; Lingli Li; Jing Wang
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-01-13

6.  Clinical Outcomes and Cadaveric Biomechanical Analysis of Endoscopic Percutaneous Achilles Tendon Rupture Repair With Absorbable Suture.

Authors:  Daniel Carpenter; Katherine Dederer; Paul Weinhold; Joshua N Tennant
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2020-11-18

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

Authors:  Kristin C Caolo; Stephanie K Eble; Carson Rider; Andrew J Elliott; Constantine A Demetracopoulos; Jonathan T Deland; Mark C Drakos; Scott J Ellis
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2021-11-29

8.  The release of adhesions improves outcome following minimally invasive repair of Achilles tendon rupture.

Authors:  Michael R Carmont; Sara Brandt Knutsson; Annelie Brorsson; Jón Karlsson; Katarina Nilsson-Helander
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-10-18       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Comparison of Ma-Griffith combined with a minimally invasive small incision to a modified suture technique for the treatment of acute achilles tendon ruptures.

Authors:  Li Jun; Yu Hao; Zhan Junfeng; Zhang Jisen; Xu Xinzhong; Yao Yunfeng; Tian Dasheng; Xie Jia
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 2.562

10.  What Is the Best Evidence to Guide Management of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Brad Meulenkamp; Taylor Woolnough; Wei Cheng; Risa Shorr; Dawn Stacey; Megan Richards; Arnav Gupta; Dean Fergusson; Ian D Graham
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 4.755

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.