[Surgical or non-operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture : What does the current literature say?]

Autor: Aurich M; Abteilung für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Department für Orthopädie, Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Halle (Saale), Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Deutschland. matthias.aurich@uk-halle.de.; Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, BG Klinikum Bergmannstrost Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Deutschland. matthias.aurich@uk-halle.de., Becherer L; Abteilung für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Department für Orthopädie, Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Halle (Saale), Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Deutschland., Rammelt S; Zentrum für Fuß- und Sprunggelenkchirurgie, UniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie, Unfall- & Plastische Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
Jazyk: němčina
Zdroj: Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) [Orthopadie (Heidelb)] 2024 Oct; Vol. 53 (10), pp. 740-748. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 04.
DOI: 10.1007/s00132-024-04556-w
Abstrakt: Background: The Achilles tendon is the strongest tendon in humans and is frequently injured, especially in the physically active young to middle-aged population. An increasing frequency of Achilles tendon ruptures (ATR) has been reported in several studies. However, there is no international consensus regarding possible non-operative (N-OP) or operative (surgical) treatment (OP).
Objectives: The aim of this article is to semi-quantitatively compare both treatment options for ATR by analyzing the results reported in the literature.
Material and Methods: For this purpose, relevant categories were identified, and the literature was then evaluated in a PubMed analysis. Ten meta-analyses and two cost analyses were included. The data was extracted according to the categories and evaluated comparatively.
Results: OP and N‑OP for acute ATR can lead to equally good restitution of clinical function if early functional rehabilitation is applied. The lower re-rupture rate is an advantage of OP, whereas the lower general complications speak in favor of N‑OP. The minimally invasive or percutaneous surgical technique (M-OP) appears to be advantageous over the open surgical technique (O-OP), although studies show an increased rate of lesions of the sural nerve.
Conclusion: There is no consensus regarding the superiority of OP or N‑OP for acute ATR, as several studies conducted since the introduction of early mobilization protocols have shown similar results for these two interventions. Results and complications of M‑OP and O‑OP are also comparable. Considering the available data on the various surgical procedures, the authors prefer the M‑OP technique with adequate sural nerve protection for repair of acute ATR, combined with an early mobilization protocol.
(© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: