Abstract
Introduction: Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is the most common over use syndrome of the lower limb. One of the simple operations performed for this condition is “Multiple longitudinal tenotomies”. This can be performed by either percutaneous or open methods. We compared the outcome of percutaneous versus open method of multiple longitudinal tenotomies for this condition.
Methods and materials: It is a retrospective study of patients operated for AT in our hospital from 1997 to 2008. Total of 43 patients. Twenty had percutaneous and 23 had open tenotomies. All of them had a trial of non-operative treatment prior to surgery, in the form of analgesia, physiotherapy, heel inserts, and ultrasound therapy. Data was collected from patient records and by telephonic questionnaire of the patients. Data collected includes pre and postoperative pain scores on a scale of 0–10, duration of symptoms, patient satisfaction scores (0–10) and complications. This questionnaire also included limitation to walk, run, going up/down the stairs, work and sporting activities.
Results: In the percutaneous group the mean pre and postoperative pain scores were 8.79 and 2.07 (p value 0.000). In the open group the values were 8.65 and 1.75 (p value 0.000). The mean satisfaction scores in the percutaneous and open groups were 8.25 (range 3–10) and 8.14(range2–10) respectively. The patient satisfaction scores were not significantly different between the two groups (p value 0.942). In the percutaneous group there was one recurrence and in one patient there was no symptomatic relief. In the open group there were 2 superficial infections, which settled with antibiotics and a wound breakdown, which in addition required debridement and eventually healed by secondary intension.
Conclusions: Both percutaneous and open methods of longitudinal tenotomies resulted in significant symptomatic relief and good patient satisfaction scores. Although the outcomes of both groups were comparable the percutanous method has an added advantage of less complications and simplicity of the procedure.
Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org