Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorHenríquez, Hugo 
Authordc.contributor.authorMuñoz, Roberto es_CL
Authordc.contributor.authorCarcuro, Giovanni es_CL
Authordc.contributor.authorBastías, Christian es_CL
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2012-04-25T20:21:07Z
Available datedc.date.available2012-04-25T20:21:07Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2012-04
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationCLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH Volume: 470 Issue: 4 Pages: 998-1003 Published: APR 2012es_CL
Identifierdc.identifier.issn0009-921X
Identifierdc.identifier.otherDOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1830-1
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/128952
Abstractdc.description.abstractOpen repair of Achilles tendon rupture has been associated with higher levels of wound complications than those associated with percutaneous repair. However, some studies suggest there are higher rerupture rates and sural nerve injuries with percutaneous repair. We compared the two types of repairs in terms of (1) function (muscle strength, ankle ROM, calf and ankle perimeter, single heel rise tests, and work return), (2) cosmesis (length scar, cosmetic appearance), and (3) complications. We retrospectively reviewed 32 surgically treated patients with Achilles rupture: 17 with percutaneous repair and 15 with open repair. All patients followed a standardized rehabilitation protocol. The minimum followup was 6 months (mean, 18 months; range, 6-48 months). We observed similar values of plantar flexor strength, ROM, calf and ankle perimeter, and single heel raising test between the groups. Mean time to return to work was longer for patients who had open versus percutaneous repair (5.6 months versus 2.8 months). Mean scar length was greater in the open repair group (9.5 cm versus 2.9 cm). Cosmetic appearance was better in the percutaneous group. Two wound complications and one rerupture were found in the open repair group. One case of deep venous thrombosis occurred in the percutaneous repair group. All complications occurred before 6 months after surgery. We identified no patients with nerve injury. Percutaneous repair provides function similar to that achieved with open repair, with a better cosmetic appearance, a lower rate of wound complications, and no apparent increase in the risk of rerupture. Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.es_CL
Lenguagedc.language.isoenes_CL
Publisherdc.publisherSPRINGERes_CL
Keywordsdc.subjectNONOPERATIVE MANAGEMENTes_CL
Títulodc.titleIs Percutaneous Repair Better Than Open Repair in Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture?es_CL
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record