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.

References

1 

Jozsa L, Kvist M, Balint BJ, Reffy A, Järvinen M, Lehto M and Barzo M: The role of recreational sport activity in Achilles tendon rupture. A clinical, pathoanatomical, and sociological study of 292 cases. Am J Sports Med. 17:338–343. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Ganestam A, Kallemose T, Troelsen A and Barfod KW: Increasing incidence of acute Achilles tendon rupture and a noticeable decline in surgical treatment from 1994 to 2013. A nationwide registry study of 33,160 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 24:3730–3737. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Khan RJ, Fick D, Keogh A, Crawford J, Brammar T and Parker M: Treatment of acute achilles tendon ruptures. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 87:2202–2210. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Wilkins R and Bisson LJ: Operative versus nonoperative management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: A quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 40:2154–2160. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Deng S, Sun Z, Zhang C, Chen G and Li J: Surgical treatment versus conservative management for acute Achilles tendon rupture: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Foot Ankle Surg. 56:1236–1243. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Soroceanu A, Sidhwa F, Aarabi S, Kaufman A and Glazebrook M: Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 94:2136–2143. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Hattrup SJ and Johnson KA: A review of ruptures of the Achilles tendon. Foot Ankle. 6:34–38. 1985. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Del Buono A, Volpin A and Maffulli N: Minimally invasive versus open surgery for acute Achilles tendon rupture: A systematic review. Br Med Bull. 109:45–54. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Li Q, Wang C, Huo Y, Jia Z and Wang X: Minimally invasive versus open surgery for acute Achilles tendon rupture: A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. J Orthop Surg Res. 11:652016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Lee SJ, Sileo MJ, Kremenic IJ, Orishimo K, Ben-Avi S, Nicholas SJ and McHugh M: Cyclic loading of 3 Achilles tendon repairs simulating early postoperative forces. Am J Sports Med. 37:786–790. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Aibinder WR, Patel A, Arnouk J, El-Gendi H, Korshunov Y, Mitgang J and Uribe J: The rate of sural nerve violation using the Achillon device: A cadaveric study. Foot Ankle Int. 34:870–875. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Carmont MR and Maffulli N: Modified percutaneous repair of ruptured Achilles tendon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 16:199–203. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Maffulli N, Longo UG, Maffulli GD, Khanna A and Denaro V: Achilles tendon ruptures in elite athletes. Foot Ankle Int. 32:9–15. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Maffulli N, Longo UG, Ronga M, Khanna A and Denaro V: Favorable outcome of percutaneous repair of Achilles tendon ruptures in the elderly. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 468:1039–1046. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Chen H, Ji X and Tang P, Liang X and Tang P: Channel-assisted minimally invasive repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture. J Orthop Surg Res. 10:1672015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Krackow KA, Thomas SC and Jones LC: A new stitch for ligament-tendon fixation. Brief note. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 68:764–766. 1986. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Calder JD and Saxby TS: Early, active rehabilitation following mini-open repair of Achilles tendon rupture: A prospective study. Br J Sports Med. 39:857–859. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Assal M, Jung M, Stern R, Rippstein P, Rippstein P, Delmi M and Hoffmeyer P: Limited open repair of Achilles tendon ruptures: A technique with a new instrument and findings of a prospective multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 84-A:161–170. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

McKeon BP, Heming JF, Fulkerson J and Langeland R: The Krackow stitch: A biomechanical evaluation of changing the number of loops versus the number of sutures. Arthroscopy. 22:33–37. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Ostrander RV, Saper MG and Juelson TJ: A biomechanical comparison of modified krackow and locking loop suture patterns for soft-tissue graft fixation. Arthroscopy. 32:1384–1388. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Hapa O, Erduran M, Havitçioğlu H, Çeçen B, Akşahin E, Güler S and Atalay K: Strength of different Krackow stitch configurations using high-strength Suture. J Foot Ankle Surg. 52:448–450. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Orishimo KF, Burstein G, Mullaney MJ, Kremenic IJ, Nesse M, McHugh MP and Lee SJ: Effect of knee flexion angle on Achilles tendon force during passive dorsiflexion. J Foot Ankle Surg. 47:34–39. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Akizuki KH, Gartman EJ, Nisonson B, Ben-Avi S and McHugh MP: The relative stress on the Achilles tendon during ambulation in an ankle immobilizer: Implications for rehabilitation after Achilles tendon repair. Br J Sports Med. 35:329–334. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

McMahon SE, Smith TO and Hing CB: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional to minimally invasive approaches for repair of an Achilles tendon rupture. Foot Ankle Surg. 17:211–217. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Cretnik A, Kosanovic M and Smrkolj V: Percutaneous versus open repair of the ruptured Achilles tendon: A comparative study. Am J Sports Med. 33:1369–1379. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Ebinesan AD, Sarai BS, Walley GD and Maffulli N: Conservative, open or percutaneous repair for acute rupture of the Achilles tendon. Disabil Rehabil. 30:1721–1725. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Cetti R, Christensen SE, Ejsted R, Jensen NM and Jorgensen U: Operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. A prospective randomized study and review of the literature. Am J Sports Med. 21:791–799. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Mark-Christensen T, Troelsen A, Kallemose T and Barfod KW: Functional rehabilitation of patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture: A meta-analysis of current evidence. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 24:1852–1859. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Nilsson-Helander K, Silbernagel KG, Thomeé R, Faxén E, Olsson N, Eriksson BI and Karlsson J: Acute Achilles tendon rupture: A randomized, controlled study comparing surgical and nonsurgical treatments using validated outcome measures. Am J Sports Med. 38:2186–2193. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Brumann M, Baumbach SF, Mutschler W and Polzer H: Accelerated rehabilitation following Achilles tendon repair after acute rupture-Development of an evidence-based treatment protocol. Injury. 45:1782–1790. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Clanton TO, Haytmanek CT, Williams BT, Civitarese DM, Turnbull TL, Massey MB, Wijdicks CA and LaPrade RF: 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. 43:1957–1964. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

32 

Demetracopoulos CA, Gilbert SL, Young E, Baxter JR and Deland JT: Limited-open Achilles tendon repair using locking sutures versus nonlocking sutures: An in vitro model. Foot Ankle Int. 35:612–618. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Heitman DE, Ng K, Crivello KM and Gallina J: Biomechanical comparison of the Achillon tendon repair system and the Krackow locking loop technique. Foot Ankle Int. 32:879–887. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Benthien RA, Aronow MS, Doran-Diaz V, Sullivan RJ, Naujoks R and Adams DJ: Cyclic loading of Achilles tendon repairs: A comparison of polyester and polyblend suture. Foot Ankle Int. 27:512–518. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Nichol SA and Silk WK: Empirical evidence of a convection-diffusion model for pH patterns in the rhizospheres of root tips. Plant Cell Environment. 24:967–974. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar

36 

Cevik M: Acquired Umbilico-inguinal fistula with persistent discharge due to suture reaction: A case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Med. 2012:2163452012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Aktas S and Kocaoglu B: Open versus minimal invasive repair with Achillon device. Foot Ankle Int. 30:391–397. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Casha JN and Hadden WA: Suture reaction following skin closure with subcuticular polydioxanone in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 11:859–861. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

39 

Kara A, Celik H, Seker A, Uysal MA, Uzun M and Malkoc M: Granuloma formation secondary to Achilles tendon repair with nonabsorbable suture. Int J Surg Case Rep. 5:720–722. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

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
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