• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

微创与开放修复原发性跟腱断裂后手术时间、结局、美容效果或活动/运动恢复无差异:回顾性研究。

No difference in operative time, outcomes, cosmesis, or return to activity and/or sport after minimally invasive versus open repair of primary Achilles ruptures: a retrospective review.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, 333 East 38th St, New York, NY, 10016, USA.

出版信息

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 May;34(4):1871-1876. doi: 10.1007/s00590-024-03859-0. Epub 2024 Mar 4.

DOI:10.1007/s00590-024-03859-0
PMID:38436745
Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes and the rate of return to sport among patients that have undergone minimally invasive repair versus open approach of an acute Achilles tendon rupture.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture at a single urban academic institution from 2017 to 2020 with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed retrospectively. Preinjury sport participation and preinjury work activity information, the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS), the Tegner Activity Scale, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System for mobility and pain interference were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 144 patients were initially included in the study. Of these, 63 patients were followed with a mean follow-up of 45.3 ± 29.2 months. The mean operative time did not significantly differ between groups (p = 0.938). Patients who underwent minimally invasive repair returned to sport at a rate of 88.9% at a mean of 10.6 ± 5.8 months, compared to return rate of open procedures of 83.7% at 9.5 ± 5.5 months. There were no significant differences in ATRS (p = 0.246), Tegner (p = 0.137) or VAS pain (p = 0.317) scores between groups. There was no difference in cosmetic satisfaction between PARS and open repair groups (88.4 vs. 76.0; p = 0.244).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent minimally invasive repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures demonstrate no significant differences with respect to cosmesis, operative time, patient-reported outcomes and the rate and level of return to activities when compared to an open approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

摘要

目的

比较微创修复与开放手术治疗急性跟腱断裂的临床疗效和重返运动率。

方法

回顾性分析 2017 年至 2020 年在一家城市学术机构接受手术治疗的急性跟腱断裂患者的临床资料,所有患者均获得至少 2 年的随访。收集患者的损伤前运动参与情况和损伤前工作活动信息、跟腱总断裂评分(ATRS)、Tegner 活动量表、患者报告的测量信息系统(PROMIS)中的移动和疼痛干扰评分。

结果

共纳入 144 例患者,其中 63 例获得平均 45.3±29.2 个月的随访。两组的平均手术时间无显著差异(p=0.938)。微创修复组的患者重返运动率为 88.9%,平均为 10.6±5.8 个月,而开放手术组的重返运动率为 83.7%,平均为 9.5±5.5 个月。两组的 ATRS(p=0.246)、Tegner(p=0.137)和 VAS 疼痛评分(p=0.317)均无显著差异。微创修复组和开放修复组的美容满意度也无差异(88.4%比 76.0%;p=0.244)。

结论

微创修复急性跟腱断裂与开放手术相比,在美容效果、手术时间、患者报告的结果以及活动的重返率和水平方面没有显著差异。

证据水平

III 级。

相似文献

1
No difference in operative time, outcomes, cosmesis, or return to activity and/or sport after minimally invasive versus open repair of primary Achilles ruptures: a retrospective review.微创与开放修复原发性跟腱断裂后手术时间、结局、美容效果或活动/运动恢复无差异:回顾性研究。
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 May;34(4):1871-1876. doi: 10.1007/s00590-024-03859-0. Epub 2024 Mar 4.
2
Outcomes and Complications of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Repair of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.开放性与微创性修复急性跟腱断裂的结局和并发症:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Am J Sports Med. 2023 Mar;51(3):825-836. doi: 10.1177/03635465211053619. Epub 2021 Dec 15.
3
Isokinetic functional outcomes of open versus percutaneous repair following Achilles tendon tears.跟腱断裂后开放修复与经皮修复的等速功能结果。
Foot Ankle Surg. 2019 Aug;25(4):503-506. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2018.03.003. Epub 2018 Mar 17.
4
Postoperative Complications Following Repair of Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture.急性跟腱断裂修复术后的并发症。
Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Jun;40(6):679-686. doi: 10.1177/1071100719831371. Epub 2019 Feb 27.
5
Open versus minimally-invasive surgery for Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis study.开放式手术与微创治疗跟腱断裂的 Meta 分析研究。
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Mar;141(3):383-401. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03437-z. Epub 2020 Apr 7.
6
Intraoperative ultrasonography assistance for minimally invasive repair of the acute Achilles tendon rupture.术中超声辅助微创修复急性跟腱断裂。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Jul 11;15(1):258. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01776-6.
7
The option of transosseous distal suture placement during minimally invasive Achilles tendon repair for high-risk patients can improve outcomes, however does not prevent re-rupture.对于高风险患者,在微创跟腱修复术中采用经骨远端缝线置入的方法可改善治疗效果,但不能防止再次断裂。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024 Aug 1;25(1):610. doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-07630-8.
8
Return to Sport and Patient Satisfaction at 5-Year Follow-up After Nonoperative Treatment for Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture.非手术治疗急性跟腱断裂后 5 年随访时的重返运动和患者满意度。
Foot Ankle Int. 2020 Jul;41(7):784-792. doi: 10.1177/1071100720919029. Epub 2020 Jun 16.
9
The release of adhesions improves outcome following minimally invasive repair of Achilles tendon rupture.微创修复跟腱断裂后,松解粘连可改善预后。
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022 Mar;30(3):1109-1117. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06767-6. Epub 2021 Oct 18.
10
Outcomes Following Repair of Achilles Midsubstance Tears: Percutaneous Knotless Repair vs Open Repair.跟腱中段撕裂修复的结果:经皮无结修复与开放修复比较。
Foot Ankle Int. 2023 Jun;44(6):499-507. doi: 10.1177/10711007231160998.

引用本文的文献

1
The impact of Achilles tendon thickness and Kager's fat pad thickness on clinical and functional outcomes following open surgical repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture.跟腱厚度和Kager脂肪垫厚度对急性跟腱断裂开放手术修复后临床及功能结局的影响。
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2025 Jun;31(6):587-595. doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2025.92998.

本文引用的文献

1
Outcomes Following Repair of Achilles Midsubstance Tears: Percutaneous Knotless Repair vs Open Repair.跟腱中段撕裂修复的结果:经皮无结修复与开放修复比较。
Foot Ankle Int. 2023 Jun;44(6):499-507. doi: 10.1177/10711007231160998.
2
Biomechanical Comparison of Krackow Repair and Percutaneous Achilles Repair System for Achilles Tendon Rupture Fixation: A Cadaveric and Finite Element Analysis Study.用于跟腱断裂固定的Krackow修复术与经皮跟腱修复系统的生物力学比较:一项尸体和有限元分析研究
Foot Ankle Orthop. 2022 Mar 31;7(1):24730114221088502. doi: 10.1177/24730114221088502. eCollection 2022 Jan.
3
Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair.
开放性与微创性跟腱修复的临床结果及并发症
Foot Ankle Orthop. 2021 Nov 29;6(4):24730114211060063. doi: 10.1177/24730114211060063. eCollection 2021 Oct.
4
Comparison of mini-open repair system and percutaneous repair for acute Achilles tendon rupture.微创切开修复系统与经皮修复治疗急性跟腱断裂的比较。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Oct 30;22(1):914. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04802-8.
5
Endoscopically Assisted, Minimally Invasive Reconstruction for Chronic Achilles Tendon Rupture With a Double-Bundle Flexor Hallucis Longus.内镜辅助下双束长屈肌腱微创重建治疗慢性跟腱断裂
Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Mar 4;9(3):2325967120979990. doi: 10.1177/2325967120979990. eCollection 2021 Mar.
6
Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Repair Using Ring Forceps for Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture.使用环形钳进行急性跟腱断裂微创修复的临床结果
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021 Mar-Apr;60(2):237-241. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.03.009. Epub 2020 Dec 23.
7
Adverse Events Following Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair.微创跟腱修复术后的不良事件。
Foot Ankle Spec. 2022 Jun;15(3):236-243. doi: 10.1177/1938640020950895. Epub 2020 Aug 25.
8
Open versus minimally-invasive surgery for Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis study.开放式手术与微创治疗跟腱断裂的 Meta 分析研究。
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Mar;141(3):383-401. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03437-z. Epub 2020 Apr 7.
9
Complications in the Management of Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of 2060 Patients.急性跟腱断裂管理中的并发症:2060 例患者的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Jul;47(9):2251-2260. doi: 10.1177/0363546518824601. Epub 2019 Feb 19.
10
Comparison of channel-assisted minimally invasive repair and 3 common Achilles tendon restoration techniques.通道辅助微创修复与3种常见跟腱修复技术的比较。
Exp Ther Med. 2019 Feb;17(2):1426-1434. doi: 10.3892/etm.2018.7075. Epub 2018 Dec 7.