Mini-open Repair for Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture: Ring Forceps vs the Achillon Device. Issue 13 (November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Park, Chul Hyun; Yan, Hongfei; Park, Jeongjin; Chang, Min Cheol
• Is Part Of: American journal of sports medicine. Volume 49:Issue 13(2021)
• Page Start: 3613
• Page End: 3619
• Publication Date: 2021-11
• Subjects: Achilles tendon -- acute rupture -- repair -- mini-open; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.102705
• DOI: 10.1177/03635465211044464
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0363-5465

Abstract

Background: Repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture using the Achillon device is a representative mini-open repair technique; however, the limitations of this technique include the need for special instruments and decreased repair strength. A modified mini-open repair using ring forceps might overcome these limitations. Purpose: To compare the Achillon device with ring forceps in mini-open repairs of acute Achilles tendon rupture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Fifty patients (41 men and 9 women) with acute Achilles tendon rupture on 1 foot were consecutively treated using mini-open repair techniques. The first 20 patients were treated using the Achillon device (Achillon group), and the subsequent 30 were treated using a ring forceps (forceps group). Clinical, functional, and isokinetic results and postoperative complications were compared between the groups at the last follow-up. Clinical evaluations were performed using the AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) score, Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score, length of incision, and operation time. Functional evaluations included active range of motion of the ankle joint, maximum calf circumference, hopping test, and single-limb heel rise (SLHR). Isokinetic evaluations were performed using the isokinetic test for ankle plantar flexion. Results: The AOFAS score ( P = .669), Achilles Tendon Total Rupture Score ( P = .753), and length of incision ( P = .305) were not significantly different between the groups (mean ± SD, 90.1 ± 8.7, 88.3 ± 9.9, and 2.7 ± 0.3 cm in the Achillon group vs 92.2 ± 9.4, 89.9 ± 10.9, and 2.5 ± 0.4 cm in the forceps group, respectively). Operation times in the Achillon group were significantly shorter than those in the forceps group (41.4 ± 9.6 vs 62.8 ± 14.1 minutes, P < .001). The maximum height of the SLHR ( P = .042) and the number of SLHRs ( P = .043) in the forceps group (79.7% ± 7.4% and 72.9% ± 10.2%) were significantly greater than those in the Achillon group (75.3% ± 7.1% and 66.7% ± 11.0%). No significant differences were detected between the groups in mean peak torques for plantar flexion at angular speeds of 30 deg/s ( P = .185) and 120 deg/s ( P = .271). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative complications between the groups ( P = .093). Conclusion: The ring forceps technique is comparable to the Achillon technique with respect to clinical, functional, and isokinetic results and postoperative complications. Given that no special instrument is required, the ring forceps technique could be a better option for acute Achilles tendon rupture repair.