Suppr超能文献

微创切开修复系统与经皮修复治疗急性跟腱断裂的比较。

Comparison of mini-open repair system and percutaneous repair for acute Achilles tendon rupture.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics Surgery, The 6th Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 6, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100048, People's Republic of China.

Department of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Beijing, 100048, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Oct 30;22(1):914. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04802-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To reduce incision complications, minimally invasive operative approaches for treatment with acute Achilles tendon rupture have been developed, such as Mini-open repair and percutaneous repair. Which technique is the better surgical option? In the present study, we compared the two surgical procedures- modified Mini-open repair versus percutaneous repair-in the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture.

METHODS

From January 2016 to November 2018, 68 matched patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture were divided into treatment group (Mini-open with modified Ma-Griffith technique) and control group (the Ma-Griffith technique). The patients were then treated with different surgical techniques and followed up for no less than 24 months, and the functional outcome scores and complications were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time in Mini-open repair group was 29.0±2.9 months, and that in control group was 27.9±2.9 months (P=0.147). The Mini-open repair group showed reliably higher American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score and Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS) than the control group in functional assessment (95.0±3.8 vs. 92.3±5.3, P=0.000; 93.8±3.8 vs. 90.9±4.5,P=0.000). There was no cases of sural nerve injury in Mini-open repair group, whereas the percutaneous repair group had 5 cases of the same (P=0.027). No significant differences were found in the calf circumference (32.3±3.9 vs. 31.8±3.6) (P=0.564), range of motion of the ankle (51.3±4.8 vs. 50.5±4.2, P=0.362), or wound complications (34/0 vs. 34/0) (P=1.000) between the two groups at the end of the follow-up time. However, the percutaneous repair group had a shorter average operating time (23.1±5.2 min) than that of the Mini-open repair group (27.7±4.3 min) (P=0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Acute Achilles tendon ruptures may be treated successfully with a new Mini-open repair system or percutaneous repair technique. However, the Mini-open repair system may represent a superior surgical option, since it offers advantages in terms of direct visual control of the repair, AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Score, Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score and risk of sural nerve palsy.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control studies, Level of evidence, 3.

摘要

背景

为了减少切口并发症,已经开发出微创手术方法来治疗急性跟腱断裂,例如微创修复和经皮修复。哪种技术是更好的手术选择?在本研究中,我们比较了两种手术方法-改良微创修复与经皮修复-在治疗急性跟腱断裂中的应用。

方法

从 2016 年 1 月至 2018 年 11 月,68 例急性跟腱断裂的匹配患者分为治疗组(改良 Ma-Griffith 技术的微创修复)和对照组(Ma-Griffith 技术)。然后,两组患者分别采用不同的手术技术进行治疗,并进行了不少于 24 个月的随访,回顾性评估了功能结果评分和并发症。

结果

微创修复组的平均随访时间为 29.0±2.9 个月,对照组为 27.9±2.9 个月(P=0.147)。在功能评估方面,微创修复组的美国矫形足踝协会(AOFAS)踝后足评分和跟腱总断裂评分(ATRS)均明显高于对照组(95.0±3.8 比 92.3±5.3,P=0.000;93.8±3.8 比 90.9±4.5,P=0.000)。微创修复组无腓肠神经损伤病例,而经皮修复组有 5 例(P=0.027)。两组在随访结束时的小腿周径(32.3±3.9 比 31.8±3.6)(P=0.564)、踝关节活动度(51.3±4.8 比 50.5±4.2,P=0.362)或伤口并发症(34/0 比 34/0)(P=1.000)方面均无显著差异。然而,经皮修复组的平均手术时间(23.1±5.2 分钟)明显短于微创修复组(27.7±4.3 分钟)(P=0.000)。

结论

急性跟腱断裂可以通过新的微创修复系统或经皮修复技术成功治疗。然而,微创修复系统可能是一种更好的手术选择,因为它在修复的直接可视化控制、AOFAS 踝后足评分、跟腱总断裂评分和腓肠神经麻痹风险方面具有优势。

研究设计

病例对照研究,证据水平 3。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验