| dc.creator |
İNCİ, Fatih; SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ANKARA ŞEHİR SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, ORTOPEDİ VE TRAVMATOLOJİ ANABİLİM DALI |
|
| dc.creator |
YAVUZ, İbrahim Alper; SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ANKARA ŞEHİR SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ, CERRAHİ TIP BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, ORTOPEDİ VE TRAVMATOLOJİ ANABİLİM DALI |
|
| dc.date |
2022-03-01T00:00:00Z |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2022-05-10T10:58:55Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2022-05-10T10:58:55Z |
|
| dc.identifier |
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sdutfd/issue/68474/1008494 |
|
| dc.identifier |
10.17343/sdutfd.1008494 |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://acikerisim.sdu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/123456789/96212 |
|
| dc.description |
AmaçAkut aşil tendon rüptürü (ATR) tedavisi halen tartışmalıbir konudur. Geleneksel açık cerrahi tedaviyegöre daha düşük re-rüptür oranları ve daha az yarayeri sorunları gözlenmesi nedeniyle akut ATR’nin mini-açık ve perkütan olarak uygulanan minimal invazivtekniklerle tedavisi daha iyi bir seçenektir. Bu tekniklerile başarılı sonuçlar alınmasına rağmen, sural siniryaralanması bu tekniklerin en önemli komplikasyonudur.Bu çalışmada, akut ATR tedavisinde kullanılanminimal invaziv tekniklerin (mini-açık ve perkütantamir) klinik sonuçlarının ve komplikasyon oranlarınınkarşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.Gereç ve Yöntem016-2019 yılları arasında akut ATR’si minimal invazivyöntemler ile tamir edilen toplam 42 hasta çalışmayaalınmıştır. Hastalar, cerrahi kesiden tendon uçlarınıngözlenebildiği mini-açık tamir grubu (Grup 1, n=22) vegözlenemediği perkütan tamir grubu (Grup 2, n=20)olmak üzere 2 gruba ayrıldı. Klinik değerlendirme içinAOFAS skoru, ayak bileği plantar fleksiyon ve dorsifleksiyonaçıları, işe ve spora geri dönüş sürelerikullanıldı. Cerrahi sonrası komplikasyonlar ise minör(tekrar cerrahi gerektirmeyen) ve majör (tekrar cerrahigerektiren) komplikasyonlar olmak üzere iki kategoriyeayrıldı. Gruplar fonksiyonel sonuçlar ve komplikasyonlaraçısından karşılaştırıldı.BulgularHastaların ortalama yaşı 40,30±5,56 (23-50) olarakbulundu. Gruplar arasında yaş, cinsiyet, ameliyatakadar geçen süre, ameliyat süresi, takip süresi açısındanistatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamadı(hepsi için p>0.05). Hastaların ameliyat sonrası ikinciyıl fonksiyonel sonuçları ile işe ve spora dönüş süreleriaçısından gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlıbir fark bulunamadı (hepsi için p>0.05). Mini-açıkgrupta 2 hastada ve perkütan tamir grubunda 3hastada minör komplikasyon gözlendi. Sural nöropatiperkütan tamir sonrası 3 (%15) hastada görülürken,mini-açık tamir sonrası hiçbir hastada görülmedi. Heriki grubun birer hastasında tekrar ameliyat gerektirenmajor komplikasyon görüldü. Gruplar arasında hemminör hem majör komplikasyonlar açısından istatistikselanlamlı fark bulunamadı (sırasıyla p=0,566 vep=0,947).SonuçAkut ATR’nin mini-açık veya perkütan tamirle tedavisininfonksiyonel sonuçları ve komplikasyonları benzerdir.Daha düşük sural sinir yaralanma riski olmasınedeniyle mini-açık tamir yöntemi daha avantajlı olabilmektedir. |
|
| dc.description |
ObjectiveTreatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) isstill a controversial issue. Treatment of acute ATRwith mini-open and percutaneously applied minimallyinvasive techniques has become a better optionbecause of lower re-rupture rates and less wound siteproblems than traditional open surgical treatment.Although successful results have been obtainedwith these techniques, sural nerve injury is the mostimportant complication of these techniques. In thisstudy, it was aimed to compare the clinical results andcomplication rates of minimally invasive techniques(mini-open and percutaneous repair) used in thetreatment of acute ATR.Material and MethodsA total of 42 patients whose acute ATR was repairedwith minimally invasive methods between 2016and 2019 were included in the study. The patientswere divided into two groups: the mini-open repairgroup in which the tendon ends could be observedfrom the surgical incision (Group A, n=22) and thepercutaneous repair group in which they could notbe observed (Group B, n=20). AOFAS score, ankleplantar flexion and dorsiflexion angles, return towork and sports were used for clinical evaluation.Post-surgical complications were divided into twocategories: minor (not requiring re-surgery) and major(requiring re-surgery) complications. The groupswere compared in terms of functional outcomes andcomplications.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 40.30±5.56 (23-50). No statistically significant difference was foundbetween the groups in terms of demographic data(p>0.05 for all). There was no statistically significantdifference between the groups in terms of thefunctional results of the patients in the second yearafter surgery and the time to return to work and sports(p>0.05 for all). Minor complications in 2 patients in themini-open group and in 3 patients in the percutaneousrepair group observed. While sural neuropathy wasseen in 3 (15%) patients after percutaneous repair,it was not seen in any patient after mini-open repair.Major complication requiring reoperation was seen inone patient of each group. There was no statisticallysignificant difference between the groups in terms ofboth minor and major complications. (p=0.566 andp=0.947, respectively).ConclusionThe functional outcomes and complication rates of thetreatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture with miniopenor percutaneous repair are similar. Becauseof the lower risk of sural nerve injury, the mini-openrepair method may be more advantageous. |
|
| dc.format |
application/pdf |
|
| dc.language |
tr |
|
| dc.publisher |
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi |
|
| dc.publisher |
Süleyman Demirel University |
|
| dc.relation |
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2022178 |
|
| dc.source |
Volume: 29, Issue: 1
101-110 |
en-US |
| dc.source |
1300-7416 |
|
| dc.source |
2602-2109 |
|
| dc.source |
SDÜ Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi |
|
| dc.subject |
Aşil tendon rüptürü,Mini-açık,Perkütan,Tamir,Sural sinir |
|
| dc.subject |
Achilles tendon rupture,Mini-open,Percutaneous,Repair,Sural nerve |
|
| dc.title |
AKUT AŞİL TENDON RÜPTÜR TEDAVİSİNDE MİNİ-AÇIK VE PERKÜTAN TAMİR YÖNTEMLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI |
tr-TR |
| dc.title |
COMPARISON OF MINI-OPEN AND PERCUTANEOUS REPAIR METHODS IN TREATMENT OF ACUT ACHILLES TENDON RUPTURE |
en-US |
| dc.type |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
|
| dc.citation |
1. Fischer S, Colcuc C, Gramlich Y, Stein T, Abdulazim A, von Welck S, Hofmann R. Prospective randomized clinical trial of open operative, minimally invasive and conservative treatments of acute Achilles tendon tear. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020;141(5):751–760 |
|
| dc.citation |
2. Wang D, Sandlin MI, Cohen JR, Lord EL, Petrigliano FA, SooHoo NF. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture: An analysis of 12,570 patients in a large healthcare database. Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;21(4):250–253. |
|
| dc.citation |
3. Chan JJ, Chen KK, Sarker S, Hasija R, Huang HH, Guzman JZ, Vulcano E. Epidemiology of Achilles tendon injuries in collegiate level athletes in the United States. Int Orthop 2020;44(3):585–594 |
|
| dc.citation |
4. Heikkinen J, Lantto I, Flinkkila T, Ohtonen P, Niinimaki J, Siira P, Laine V, Leppilahti J. Soleus atrophy is common after the nonsurgical treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a randomized clinical trial comparing surgical and nonsurgical functional treatments. Am J Sports Med 2017;45(6):1395–14 |
|
| dc.citation |
5. Ochen Y, Beks RB, van Heijl M, Hietbrink F, Leenen LPH, van der Velde D, Heng M, van der Meijden O, Groenwold RHH, Houwert RM. Operative treatment versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019 Jan 7;364:5120. |
|
| dc.citation |
6. Gatz M, Driessen A, Eschweiler J, Tingart M, Migliorini F. Open versus minimally-invasive surgery for Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(3):383–401 |
|
| dc.citation |
7. Haji A, Sahai A, Symes A, Vyas JK. Percutaneous versus open tendo Achillis repair. Foot Ankle Int 2004;25.215–8 |
|
| dc.citation |
8. Joannas G, Arrondo G, Eslava S, Casola L, Drago J, Barousse R, et al. Percutaneous Achilles tendon repair with the Dresden instrument. Clinical and MRI evaluation of 90 patients. Foot Ankle Surg 2020;26(2):209-217 |
|
| dc.citation |
9. Khan RJ, Fick D, Keogh A, et al. Treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87(10):2202–10 |
|
| dc.citation |
10. Ma GW, Griffith TG. Percutaneus repair of acute closed ruptured Achilles tendon: a new technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977;128:247–55. |
|
| dc.citation |
11. Bradley JP, Tibone JE. Percutaneus and open repairs of Achilles tendon ruptures. Am J Sports Med 1990;18:188–95. |
|
| dc.citation |
12. Jones MP, Khan RJ, Carey Smith RL. Surgical interventions for treating acute Achilles tendon rupture: key findings from a recent Cochrane review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(12):e88. |
|
| dc.citation |
13. Yang B, Liu Y, Kan S, et al. Outcomes and complications of percutaneous versus open repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2017;40:178–186. |
|
| dc.citation |
14. Kakiuchi M. A combined open and percutaneous technique for repair of tendo Achillis. Comparison with open repair. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1995; 77(1):60–3 |
|
| dc.citation |
15. Clanton TO, Haytmanek CT, Williams BT, et al. A biomechanical comparison of an open repair and 3 minimally invasive percutaneous Achilles tendon repair techniques during a simulated, progressive rehabilitation protocol. Am J Sports Med 2015;43(8):1957–64 |
|
| dc.citation |
16. Carmont MR, Rossi R, Scheffler S, Mei-Dan O, Beaufils P. Percutaneous and mini invasive achilles tendon repair. Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, rehabilitation, therapy, Technology. 2011;3:28 |
|
| dc.citation |
17. Jiang X, Qian S, Chen C, Wu H, Zhi X, Xu D, Lian J, Liu X, Wei S, Xu F. Modified mini-incision "internal splinting" versus percutaneous repair technique of acute Achilles tendon rupture: five year retrospective case-controlled study. Int Orthop. 2021 Aug 13. doi: 10.1007/s00264-021-05185-0 |
|
| dc.citation |
18. Brumann M, Baumbach SF, Mutschler W, Polzer H. Accelerated rehabilitation following Achilles tendon repair after acute rupture – Development of an evidence-based treatment protocol. Injury. 2014;45(11), 1782–1790. |
|
| dc.citation |
19. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, et al. Clinical rating systems for the ankle hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 1994;15:349–53. |
|
| dc.citation |
20. Klein W, Lang DM, Saleh M. The use of the Ma-Griffith technique for percutaneous repair of fresh ruptured tendon Achilles. Chir Organi Mov 1991;76:223–8 |
|
| dc.citation |
21. Braunstein M, Baumbach SF, Boecker W, Carmont MR, Polzer H. Development of an accelerated functional rehabilitation protocol following minimal invasive Achilles tendon repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Mar;26(3):846-853. |
|
| dc.citation |
22. McCormack R, Bovard J. Early functional rehabilitation or cast immobilisation for the postoperative management of acute Achilles tendon rupture? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Sports Med 2015;49:1329–1335 |
|
| dc.citation |
23. Kupcha PC, Mackenzie WGS.Percutaneous achilles tendon repair using ring forceps. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2008;37(11):586 |
|
| dc.citation |
24. Telleria JJM, Smith JT, Ready LV, Bluman EM. Outcomes of Limited Open Achilles Repair Using Modified Ring Forceps. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Sep 13;6(9) |
|
| dc.citation |
25. Majewski M, Schaeren S, Kohlhaas U, Ochsner PE. Postoperative rehabilitation after percutaneous Achilles tendon repair: early functional therapy versus cast immobilization. Disabil Rehabil. 2008; 30(20-22):1726-32. |
|
| dc.citation |
26. Valkering KP, Aufwerber S, Ranuccio F, Lunini E, Edman G, Ackermann PW. Functional weight-bearing mobilization after Achilles tendon rupture enhances early healing response: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Jun;25(6):1807-1816. |
|
| dc.citation |
27. Ozkaya U, Parmaksizoglu AS, Kabukcuoglu Y, Sokucu S, Basilgan S. Open minimally invasive Achilles tendon repair with early rehabilitation: Functional results of 25 consecutive patients. Injury, Int. J. Care Injured. 2009;40: 669–672 |
|