两种技术修复急性跟腱断裂的比较

Comparison of two techniques for repairing acute Achilles tendon rupture

摘要:

[目的] 比较微创与传统开放修复急性跟腱损伤的临床效果。[方法] 2016—2020 年手术治疗急性跟腱断裂 59 例。 其中，29 例采用微创修复(微创组)，30 例采用传统开放修复(常规组)。比较两组围手术期及随访期资料。[结果]两组患者均顺利完成手术。微创组手术时间、切口总长度、术中失血量、住院时间明显优于常规组 (P＜0.05)。两组术后并发症发生率的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。末次随访时，两组间 AOFAS 评分及踝关节活动度差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。[结论]微创治疗和传统手术治疗具有相同的手术疗效。但是微创组具有住院时间短、创伤小等优点。

关键词:跟腱断裂;微创修复;传统开放修复

Abstract:

[Objective] To compare the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive repair and traditional open repair for acute Achilles ten- don injury. [Methods] From 2016 to 2020, a total of 59 patients underwent surgical treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture. Among them, 30 patients were treated with minimally invasive repair (minimally invasive group), while the remaining 29 patients received tradition- al open repair (traditional group) . The data of perioperative period and follow-up period were compared between the two groups. [Results] All the patients in both groups had operation performed successfully. The minimally invasive group proved significantly superior to the tra- ditional group in terms of operative time, total incision length, intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay (P＜0.05) . However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P＞0.05) . At the latest follow up, there was no significant difference in average AOFAS score and ankle range of motion between the two groups (P＞0.05) . [Conclusion] Both minimally invasive repair and traditional open repair are effective treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture. By contrast, the minimally invasive technique has the advantages of short hospital stay and less trauma.

Key words:Achilles tendon rupture; minimally invasive repair; traditional open repair