The Israel Medical Association journal : IMAJ · 2010
Achilles tendon rupture and our experience with the Achillon device.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Feldbrin Zeev, Hendel David, Lipkin Alexander, Zin Dan, Schorr Louis
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Open repair of the Achilles tendon is still the gold standard for treating rupture. This technique has the disadvantages of a long and problematic operative scar and thickly scarred Achilles tendon. To improve the surgical outcome minimally invasive techniques have been developed.
OBJECTIVES: To analyze our results of Achilles tendon repair using the Achillon device and compare them with published studies.
METHODS: We performed surgical repair of the Achilles tendon in 28 patients during a 4 year period (2004-2008): 14 patients were treated with the Achillon device, 12 with the open suture technique and 2 with the percutaneous method. Fourteen patients were available for follow-up: 9 patients with the Achillon device, 3 patients with open suturing and 2 patients with the percutaneous technique. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 4 years.
RESULTS: The average score of the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale for the group treated with the Achillon device was 95.6 points (range 84-100) and for the group treated with the open method, 90 points (range 84-98). The length of the scar in patients operated with a minimally invasive technique was 3.81 cm (range 1-6 cm) as compared to 9.16 cm (range 8-10.5 cm) with the open suture.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review on this procedure in Israel. Excellent functional results were achieved with this technique. Our outcomes were similar to those of two other studies.
OBJECTIVES: To analyze our results of Achilles tendon repair using the Achillon device and compare them with published studies.
METHODS: We performed surgical repair of the Achilles tendon in 28 patients during a 4 year period (2004-2008): 14 patients were treated with the Achillon device, 12 with the open suture technique and 2 with the percutaneous method. Fourteen patients were available for follow-up: 9 patients with the Achillon device, 3 patients with open suturing and 2 patients with the percutaneous technique. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 4 years.
RESULTS: The average score of the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale for the group treated with the Achillon device was 95.6 points (range 84-100) and for the group treated with the open method, 90 points (range 84-98). The length of the scar in patients operated with a minimally invasive technique was 3.81 cm (range 1-6 cm) as compared to 9.16 cm (range 8-10.5 cm) with the open suture.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review on this procedure in Israel. Excellent functional results were achieved with this technique. Our outcomes were similar to those of two other studies.