What Is the Best Treatment for Achilles Tendon Rupture?

Published on 11/03/2015 by admin

Last modified 11/03/2015

Print this page

This article have been viewed 1398 times

Chapter 69 What Is the Best Treatment for Achilles Tendon Rupture?

Achilles tendon ruptures (Fig. 69-1) are a catastrophic event that occurs when forces that are placed on the Achilles tendon exceed its tensile limits (approximately strain >8%).¹ This event is likely a result of a preexisting Achilles tendon disease²^–⁴ if the forces are relatively low. The histopathology of the diseased human Achilles tendon has been previously described on the basis of biopsies from the Achilles tendons of patients with subcutaneous rupture^3,⁵^–⁹ and chronic, localized Achilles tendon symptoms.^6,^{10, 11} These studies suggest that a common pathologic process may predispose individuals to rupture.^3,⁶

FIGURE 69-1 Ruptured Achilles tendon.

The most common patient profile for human Achilles tendon rupture would be that of a man in his third or fourth decade of life who plays sports occasionally. Men-to-women rupture ratios have been reported from 2:1 to 12:1.^2,^{4, 12} The mean age has been estimated between the 30s and 40s,¹³ with the left Achilles rupture more common than the right probably reflecting right-side dominance with left leg pushing off.¹⁴ Leppilahti and colleagues¹³ report on an increasing incidence of rupture in 1994 in Oulu, Finland, to be 18 per 100,000, whereas Suchak and coworkers¹⁵ report the incidence to be between 5.5 and 9.9 ruptures per 100,000 in North America. Subjects have been participating in sports during rupture at rates from 44.4% to 83%,^16,¹⁷ with 52.3% of ruptures playing badminton. The site of rupture has been reported to occur in the myotendinous junction in 12.1%, the insertion in 4.6%, and 3.5 cm proximal to the insertion in 83% of patients.⁴

The intention of this chapter is to provide the best evidence available for the treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures. It is divided into four sections including operative versus nonoperative treatment, percutaneous versus open operative treatment, and postoperative functional rehabilitation. Final treatment recommendations are based on the literature presented combined with clinical experience of overall patient care needs.

TREATMENT

Level I and II evidence evaluating operative and nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture are based on healthy patients. The surgical approaches of open repair and percutaneous repair are consistent. However, the specific surgical technique for open and percutaneous repairs may vary by suture technique and suture material. The variation in suture technique and material is not believed to be clinically significant because the strength of the repair is equivalent.

Operative versus Nonoperative Treatment

In an attempt to gather the best evidence available to guide treatment recommendations for Achilles tendon rupture, a literature search was performed using the search terms “Achilles,” “tendon,” “rupture,” “treatment,” “operative,” and “nonoperative.” Literature was then screened for Level I and II evidence comparing operative and nonoperative treatments of Achilles tendon ruptures. The search was narrowed to six studies (Table 69-1).

TABLE 69-1 Summary of the Evidence Available That Should be Considered When Choosing Treatment Options for a Ruptured Achilles Tendon

Three of the studies meet the criteria for Level 1 original evidence articles including randomized, control trials (RCT) by Cetti and investigators,¹⁶ Moller and researchers,²¹ and Nistor.²² Cetti and investigators¹⁶ randomized 111 healthy subjects, of which 90% were reported to regularly participate in sports, to operative repair (n = 56) or nonoperative treatment (n = 55) of their ruptured Achilles tendons. This study cites a rerupture rate of 5.4% and 14.5% for operative and nonoperative cohorts, respectively. The deep infection rate was 3.6% and 0% in favor of the nonoperative cohort. Furthermore, many complications rates were cited to be lower in the nonoperative group, as was the return to sport rate.

In the second Level I study, Moller and researchers ²¹ cite similar results with a rupture rate of 1.7% versus 20.8% in the operative and nonoperative cohorts, respectfully. This study also cites decreased complications with a slower return to work time in the patients treated without surgery. The patients in both cohorts had similar demographic characteristics and were healthy, reporting a high level (70–80%) of regular participation in sports.

In the third Level I original evidence article, Nistor ²² randomized 115 patients of similar health demographic characteristics to operative repair or nonoperative treatment of their ruptured Achilles tendon. Results reported included a 3% rerupture rate for both operative and nonoperative treatments, whereas the infection rate was 4.4% and 0% favoring nonoperative treatment. The minor complication rate was much greater (68.8% vs. 0%) in the nonoperative group.

The final three studies reviewed included Level I meta-analysis studies by Bhandari and colleagues ²³ and Khan and coauthors,²⁴ and a Level II quantitative review of the literature by Wong and coauthors.²⁵ The most recent study by Khan combined the results of four studies,^16,^{21, 22, 26} which included 356 patients. The cumulative rerupture rate was greater (12.6% vs. 4.6%) in the nonoperative group, but the infection (4.0% vs. 0%) and minor complication rates (33.5% vs. 2.7%) were lower.

In Bhandari and colleagues’²³ Level I meta-analysis study, six original articles were identified to meet all eligibility criteria.^16,^21,^22,²⁷^–²⁹ The cumulative rerupture rate was greater in the nonoperative group (13% vs. 3.1%; n = 448; P = 0.005), but the infection rate was lower (0% vs. 4.7%; n = 421; P = 0.03). No difference was cited in the return to function and the spontaneous complaints cumulative data.

Finally, Wong and coauthors’²⁵ quantitative review of the literature pooled data gathered from 125 articles including 5370 patients. This study identifies no difference in the rerupture rate between operative and nonoperative cohorts (1.4% vs. 1.5%) but does cite an increased wound complication rate in the operative cohort (14.6% vs. 0.5 %).

Percutaneous versus Open Operative Repair

A literature search was performed using the search terms “Achilles,” “tendon,” “rupture,” “treatment,” and “operative,” “open,” “percutaneous,” and “surgery.” Literature was then screened for Level I and II evidence comparing percutaneous and open operative treatments of Achilles tendon ruptures; three studies were found ³⁰^–³² (see Table 69-1).

The best article currently available is a Level I RCT with a patient population of 66 (33 patients in each of the open and percutaneous cohorts) by Lim and coauthors.³² Patients in these cohorts were described as more sedentary (30% regular participation in sports) with no information on health status. Results cited a lower rerupture rate in patients treated with percutaneous repair versus open repair (6% vs. 2%); however, the differences in these results were not statistically significant. However, a statistically significant increase in the infection rate for patients treated with open repair (21% vs. 0%) was reported. Sural nerve complications, adhesions, and perceived functional outcomes were greater in the percutaneous repair, although again they were not statistically significant.

Buy Membership for Orthopaedics Category to continue reading. Learn more here