Outcomes and Complications of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Repair of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

• Published in: The American journal of sports medicine Vol. 51; no. 3; pp. 825 - 836
• Main Authors: Attia, Ahmed Khalil, Mahmoud, Karim, d’Hooghe, Pieter, Bariteau, Jason, Labib, Sameh A., Myerson, Mark S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01-03-2023; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Achilles Tendon - injuries; Achilles Tendon - surgery; Acute Disease; Ankle Injuries; Clinical trials; Humans; Infections; Meta-analysis; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Necrosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rupture - surgery; Sports injuries; Sports medicine; Systematic review; Tendon Injuries - surgery; Tendons; Treatment Outcome; minimally invasive surgery; open repair; ankle; Achilles tendon rupture
• ISSN: 0363-5465; 1552-3365
• DOI: 10.1177/03635465211053619

Background:
An acute Achilles tendon rupture is one of the most common sports injuries, affecting 18 per 100,000 persons, and its operative repair has been evolving and increasing in frequency since the mid-1900s. Traditionally, open surgical repair has provided improved functional outcomes, reduced rerupture rates, and a quicker recovery and return to activities at the expense of increased wound complications such as infections and skin necrosis compared with nonoperative management. In 1977, Ma and Griffith introduced the percutaneous approach, and over the following decades, multiple improved techniques, and modifications thereof, have been described with comparable outcomes with open repair.
Purpose:
The current study aimed to provide updated level 1 evidence comparing open repair with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) through a comprehensive search of the literature published in English, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, and German while avoiding limitations of previous studies such as heterogeneous study designs and a small number of included trials.
Study Design:
Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1.
Methods:
Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, 2 independent team members searched several databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing open repair and MIS of Achilles tendon ruptures. The primary outcomes were (1) functional outcomes, (2) reruptures, (3) sural nerve injuries, and (4) infections (deep/superficial), whereas the secondary outcomes were (1) skin complications, (2) adhesions, (3) other complications, (4) ankle range of motion, and (5) surgical time.
Results:
There were 10 RCTs that qualified for the meta–analysis with a total of 522 patients. Overall, 260 (49.8%) patients underwent open repair, while 262 (50.2%) underwent MIS. The mean postoperative AOFAS score was 94.8 and 95.7 for open repair and MIS, respectively, with a nonsignificant difference (mean difference [MD], –0.73 [95% CI, –1.70 to 0.25]; P = .14; I2 = 0%). The pooled mean total complication rate was 15.5% (0%-36.4%) for open repair and 10.4% (0%-45.5%) for MIS, with a nonsignificant statistical difference (odds ratio [OR], 1.50 [95% CI, 0.87-2.57]; P = .14; I2 = 40%). The mean rerupture rate was 2.5% (0%-6.8%) for open repair versus 1.5% (0%-4.6%) for MIS, with a nonsignificant statistical difference (OR, 1.56 [95% CI, 0.42-5.70]; P = .50; I2 = 0%). No cases of sural nerve injuries were reported in the open repair group. The mean sural nerve injury rate was 3.4% (0%-7.3%) in the MIS group, which was statistically significant (OR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03-0.46]; P = .02; I2 = 0%). The mean overall superficial infection rate was 6.0% (0%-18.2%) and 0.4% (0%-4.5%) for open repair and MIS, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (OR, 5.70 [95% CI, 1.80-18.02]; P < .001; I2 = 0%). The mean overall deep infection rate reported in the open repair group was 1.4% (0%-5.0%), while no deep infection was reported in the MIS group, with no statistically significant difference (OR, 3.14 [95% CI, 0.48-20.54]; P = .23; I2 = 0%). There were no significant differences between the open repair and MIS groups in the skin necrosis and dehiscence rate, adhesion rate, or keloid scar rate. The mean surgical time was 51.0 and 29.7 minutes for open repair and MIS, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (MD, 21.13 [95% CI, 15.50-26.75]; P < .001; I2 = 15%).
Conclusion:
Open Achilles tendon repair was associated with a longer surgical time, higher risk of superficial infections, and higher risk of ankle stiffness, while MIS was associated with a greater risk of temporary sural nerve palsy. The rerupture rate and functional outcomes were mostly equivalent. We found MIS to be a safe and reliable technique. However, high–quality standardized RCTs are still needed before recommending MIS as the gold standard for managing Achilles tendon ruptures.