Search

Background: There is no consensus on the optimal technique for repairing an acute Achilles tendon rupture. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the complications, subjective outcomes, and functional results between minimally invasive surgery and open repair of an Achilles tendon rupture.Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EBSCOhost, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing minimally invasive surgery and open repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. A meta-analysis was performed, while bias and the quality of the evidence were rated according to the Cochrane Database questionnaire and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.Results: Eight studies, with 182 patients treated with minimally invasive surgery and 176 treated with open repair, were included. The meta-analysis showed a significantly decreased risk ratio (RR) of 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 0.40, p = 0.00001) for overall complications and 0.15 (95% CI = 0.05 to 0.46, p = 0.0009) for wound infection after minimally invasive surgery. Patients treated with minimally invasive surgery were more likely to report good or excellent subjective results (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.33, p = 0.009). No differences between groups were found with respect to reruptures, sural nerve injury, return to preinjury activity level, time to return to work, or ankle range of motion. The overall quality of evidence was generally low because of a substantial risk of bias, heterogeneity, indirectness of outcome reporting, and evaluation of a limited number of patients.Conclusions: There was a significantly decreased risk of postoperative complications, especially wound infection, when acute Achilles tendon rupture was treated with minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery. Patients treated with minimally invasive surgery were significantly more likely to report a good or excellent subjective outcome. Current evidence is associated with high heterogeneity and a considerable risk of bias.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction fails, a revision procedure may be performed to improve knee function, correct instability, and allow return to activities. The results of revision ACL reconstruction have been reported to produce good but inferior patient-reported and objective outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction, but the degree to which this is the case varies widely among published studies and may be influenced by heterogeneity of patients, techniques, and endpoints assessed. For those reasons, a systematic review may provide important insights.Questions/purposes: In a systematic review, we asked: (1) What is the proportion of revision ACL reconstruction cumulative failures defined as rerupture or objective failure using prespecified clinical criteria at mean followup of at least 5 years? (2) What are the most common complications of revision ACL reconstruction?Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We included studies that reported the clinical evaluation of revision ACL reconstruction with Lachman test, pivot shift test, side-to-side difference with KT-1000/2000 arthrometer, and with a mean followup of at least 5 years. We excluded studies that incompletely reported these outcomes, that reported only reruptures, or that were not in the English language. Extracted data included the number of graft reruptures and objective clinical failure, defined as a knee that met one of the following endpoints: Lachman test Grade II to III, pivot shift Grade II to III, KT-1000/2000 > 5-mm difference, or International Knee Documentation Committee Grade C or D. For each study, we determined the proportion of patients who had experienced a rupture of the revision ACL graft as well as the proportion of patients who met one or more of our clinical failure endpoints. Those proportions were summed for each study to generate a percentage of patients who met our definition of cumulative failure. Complications and reoperations were recorded but not pooled as a result of inconsistency of reporting and heterogeneity of populations across the included studies. Of the 663 screened studies, 15 articles were included in the systematic review. Because one study reported two separate groups of patients with different treatments, 16 case series were considered in the evaluation.Results: The proportion of reruptures (range, 0%-25%) was > 5% in only four of 16 series and > 10% in only one of them. The objective clinical failures (range, 0%-82%) was > 5% in 15 of 16 series and > 10% in 12 of them. The proportion exceeded 20% in five of 16 series. The cumulative failures (range, 0%-83%) was > 5% in all except one series and > 10% in 12 of 16 series; five series had a cumulative failure proportion > 20%. The most frequent complications were knee stiffness and anterior knee pain, whereas reoperations were primarily débridement and meniscectomies.Conclusions: Considering rerupture alone as a failure endpoint in patients who have undergone revision ACL reconstruction likely underestimates the real failure rate, because the percentage of failures noticeably increases when objective criteria are also considered. Whether patient-reported and subjective scores evaluating knee function, level of activity, satisfaction, and pain might also contribute to the definition of failure may be the focus of future studies.Level Of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]