Comparison of channel‑assisted minimally invasive repair and 3 common Achilles tendon restoration techniques

  • Authors:
    • Hongzhe Qi
    • Xinran Ji
    • Yalin Cui
    • Lizhen Wang
    • Hua Chen
    • Peifu Tang
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: December 7, 2018     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.7075
  • Pages: 1426-1434
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the biomechanical comparison of channel‑assisted minimally invasive restoration and three common Achilles tendon restoration techniques in an in vitro model via a progressive rehabilitation program. The 42 porcine tendons were randomly assigned to the following six groups of tendons (n=7/group): Achillon, percutaneous Achilles repair system (PARS), Krackow, channel‑assisted minimally invasive repair (CAMIR), CAMIR augmentation (CAMIR+), CAMIR‑5 (repair with No. 5 Ethibond suture). There was no significant difference in elongation among groups following the first 10 loading cycles, which consisted of 20‑100 N at 1 Hz. The elongation of the CAMIR group (7.51±1.77 mm) was significantly longer than the Achillon group (3.19±0.57 mm) and PARS group (3.73±0.66 mm; P<0.05) following 1,000 cycles. However, the CAMIR group exhibited no significant difference vs. the Krackow (7.32±1.09 mm) and CAMIR+ groups (7.11±1.50 mm) following 1,000 cycles. Following 2,000 cycles, there was no significant difference between the CAMIR‑5 (7.99±1.68 mm) group, and the Achillon (3.19±0.57 mm) and PARS groups (3.73±0.66 mm). At the point of restoration construct failure, the total cycles of the CAMIR group (median, 1,000; range, 1,000‑1,000) were significantly less than the Achillon group (median, 2,000; range, 2,000‑2,013) and PARS group (median, 2,000; range, 2,000‑2,010; P<0.05), but had no significant difference compared with the Krackow group (median, 1,000; range, 1,000‑1,000) and CAMIR+ group 1,000 (median, 1,000; range, 1,000‑1,004). There was also no significant difference between the CAMIR‑5 group (median, 2,000; range, 2,000‑2,000), and the Achillon group (median, 2,000; range, 2,000‑2,013) and PARS group (median, 2,000; range, 2,000‑2,010). Restricted by the strength of suture, the one‑suture CAMIR restoration technique was weaker than the three‑suture Achillon and PARS restoration techniques, but there was no significant difference with the open Krackow restoration technique, which provides a reliable mechanical strength for repairing. CAMIR has an advantage of reducing the risk of suture reactivity.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

February 2019
Volume 17 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
APA
Qi, H., Ji, X., Cui, Y., Wang, L., Chen, H., & Tang, P. (2019). Comparison of channel‑assisted minimally invasive repair and 3 common Achilles tendon restoration techniques. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 17, 1426-1434. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.7075
MLA
Qi, H., Ji, X., Cui, Y., Wang, L., Chen, H., Tang, P."Comparison of channel‑assisted minimally invasive repair and 3 common Achilles tendon restoration techniques". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 17.2 (2019): 1426-1434.
Chicago
Qi, H., Ji, X., Cui, Y., Wang, L., Chen, H., Tang, P."Comparison of channel‑assisted minimally invasive repair and 3 common Achilles tendon restoration techniques". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 17, no. 2 (2019): 1426-1434. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.7075