Loading…
Republication of “A Biomechanical Comparison of Limited Open Versus Krackow Repair for Achilles Tendon Rupture”
Background: Soft tissue complications after Achilles tendon repair has led to increased interest in less invasive techniques. Various limited open techniques have gained popularity as an alternative to open operative repair. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare an open Krackow an...
Saved in:
Published in: | Foot & ankle orthopaedics 2023-07, Vol.8 (3), p.24730114231188112-24730114231188112 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-6b3ee82df4db9b14cec8270edae17e195d9d92fb748a1bf76dc04a091b39af513 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-6b3ee82df4db9b14cec8270edae17e195d9d92fb748a1bf76dc04a091b39af513 |
container_end_page | 24730114231188112 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 24730114231188112 |
container_title | Foot & ankle orthopaedics |
container_volume | 8 |
creator | Dekker, Robert G. Qin, Charles Lawton, Cort Muriuki, Muturi G. Havey, Robert M. Alshouli, Mohammed Patwardhan, Avinash G. Kadakia, Anish |
description | Background:
Soft tissue complications after Achilles tendon repair has led to increased interest in less invasive techniques. Various limited open techniques have gained popularity as an alternative to open operative repair. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare an open Krackow and limited open repair for Achilles tendon rupture. We hypothesized that there would be no statistical difference in load to failure, work to failure, and initial linear stiffness.
Methods:
A simulated Achilles tendon rupture was created 4 cm proximal to its insertion in 18 fresh-frozen cadaveric below-knee lower limbs. Specimens were randomized to open or limited open PARS Achilles Jig System repair. Repairs were loaded to failure at a rate of 25.4 mm/s to reflect loading during normal ankle range of motion. Load to failure, work to failure, and initial linear stiffness were compared between the 2 repair types.
Results:
The average load to failure (353.8 ± 88.8 N vs 313.3 ± 99.9 N; P = .38) and work to failure (6.4 ± 2.3 J vs 6.3 ± 3.5 J; P = .904) were not statistically different for Krackow and PARS repair, respectively. Mean initial linear stiffness of the Krackow repair (17.8 ± 5.4 N/mm) was significantly greater than PARS repair (11.8 ± 2.5 N/mm) (P = .011).
Conclusion:
No significant difference in repair strength was seen, but higher initial linear stiffness for Krackow repair suggests superior resistance to gap formation, which may occur during postoperative rehabilitation. With equal repair strength, but less soft tissue devitalization, the PARS may be a favorable option for patients with risk factors for soft tissue complications. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/24730114231188112 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_653a9bbaf04c4960a916b635eb11eee5</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_24730114231188112</sage_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_653a9bbaf04c4960a916b635eb11eee5</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2920218467</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-6b3ee82df4db9b14cec8270edae17e195d9d92fb748a1bf76dc04a091b39af513</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1ks1u1DAQgCMEolXpA3BBlrhw2eJxHMc-oWXFT8VKlarC1bKdya6XJA52UsStDwIv1ychYUtpQZxszXzzeTyaLHsK9ASgLF8yXuYUgLMcQEoA9iA7nGOLOfjwzv0gO05pRymFslBKysfZQV4WVFDFDrN0jv1oG-_M4ENHQk2ur74vyWsfWnRb002JhqxC25vo0x5Y-9YPWJGzHjvyCWMaE_kQjfscvpLJZnwkdYhk6ba-aTCRC-yqqfJ87Icx4vXVjyfZo9o0CY9vzqPs49s3F6v3i_XZu9PVcr1wnEu2EDZHlKyqeWWVBe7QSVZSrAxCiaCKSlWK1bbk0oCtS1E5yg1VYHNl6gLyo-x0762C2ek--tbEbzoYr38FQtxoEwfvGtSiyI2y1tSUO64ENQqEFXmBFgARi8n1au-aptVi5bAbomnuSe9nOr_Vm3CpgeZCAZ27eXFjiOHLiGnQrU8Om8Z0GMakmeScKlHAjD7_C92FMXbTrDRTjDKQXJQTBXvKxZBSxPq2G6B6XhH9z4pMNc_ufuO24vdCTMDJHkhmg3-e_b_xJ5lfxfo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2920218467</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Republication of “A Biomechanical Comparison of Limited Open Versus Krackow Repair for Achilles Tendon Rupture”</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>SAGE Journals Open Access</source><creator>Dekker, Robert G. ; Qin, Charles ; Lawton, Cort ; Muriuki, Muturi G. ; Havey, Robert M. ; Alshouli, Mohammed ; Patwardhan, Avinash G. ; Kadakia, Anish</creator><creatorcontrib>Dekker, Robert G. ; Qin, Charles ; Lawton, Cort ; Muriuki, Muturi G. ; Havey, Robert M. ; Alshouli, Mohammed ; Patwardhan, Avinash G. ; Kadakia, Anish</creatorcontrib><description>Background:
Soft tissue complications after Achilles tendon repair has led to increased interest in less invasive techniques. Various limited open techniques have gained popularity as an alternative to open operative repair. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare an open Krackow and limited open repair for Achilles tendon rupture. We hypothesized that there would be no statistical difference in load to failure, work to failure, and initial linear stiffness.
Methods:
A simulated Achilles tendon rupture was created 4 cm proximal to its insertion in 18 fresh-frozen cadaveric below-knee lower limbs. Specimens were randomized to open or limited open PARS Achilles Jig System repair. Repairs were loaded to failure at a rate of 25.4 mm/s to reflect loading during normal ankle range of motion. Load to failure, work to failure, and initial linear stiffness were compared between the 2 repair types.
Results:
The average load to failure (353.8 ± 88.8 N vs 313.3 ± 99.9 N; P = .38) and work to failure (6.4 ± 2.3 J vs 6.3 ± 3.5 J; P = .904) were not statistically different for Krackow and PARS repair, respectively. Mean initial linear stiffness of the Krackow repair (17.8 ± 5.4 N/mm) was significantly greater than PARS repair (11.8 ± 2.5 N/mm) (P = .011).
Conclusion:
No significant difference in repair strength was seen, but higher initial linear stiffness for Krackow repair suggests superior resistance to gap formation, which may occur during postoperative rehabilitation. With equal repair strength, but less soft tissue devitalization, the PARS may be a favorable option for patients with risk factors for soft tissue complications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2473-0114</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-0114</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/24730114231188112</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37506092</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Biomechanics ; Tendons</subject><ispartof>Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2023-07, Vol.8 (3), p.24730114231188112-24730114231188112</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023 2023 American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-6b3ee82df4db9b14cec8270edae17e195d9d92fb748a1bf76dc04a091b39af513</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-6b3ee82df4db9b14cec8270edae17e195d9d92fb748a1bf76dc04a091b39af513</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10369101/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2920218467?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,21966,25753,27853,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590,44945,45333,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37506092$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dekker, Robert G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qin, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawton, Cort</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muriuki, Muturi G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Havey, Robert M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alshouli, Mohammed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patwardhan, Avinash G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kadakia, Anish</creatorcontrib><title>Republication of “A Biomechanical Comparison of Limited Open Versus Krackow Repair for Achilles Tendon Rupture”</title><title>Foot & ankle orthopaedics</title><addtitle>Foot Ankle Orthop</addtitle><description>Background:
Soft tissue complications after Achilles tendon repair has led to increased interest in less invasive techniques. Various limited open techniques have gained popularity as an alternative to open operative repair. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare an open Krackow and limited open repair for Achilles tendon rupture. We hypothesized that there would be no statistical difference in load to failure, work to failure, and initial linear stiffness.
Methods:
A simulated Achilles tendon rupture was created 4 cm proximal to its insertion in 18 fresh-frozen cadaveric below-knee lower limbs. Specimens were randomized to open or limited open PARS Achilles Jig System repair. Repairs were loaded to failure at a rate of 25.4 mm/s to reflect loading during normal ankle range of motion. Load to failure, work to failure, and initial linear stiffness were compared between the 2 repair types.
Results:
The average load to failure (353.8 ± 88.8 N vs 313.3 ± 99.9 N; P = .38) and work to failure (6.4 ± 2.3 J vs 6.3 ± 3.5 J; P = .904) were not statistically different for Krackow and PARS repair, respectively. Mean initial linear stiffness of the Krackow repair (17.8 ± 5.4 N/mm) was significantly greater than PARS repair (11.8 ± 2.5 N/mm) (P = .011).
Conclusion:
No significant difference in repair strength was seen, but higher initial linear stiffness for Krackow repair suggests superior resistance to gap formation, which may occur during postoperative rehabilitation. With equal repair strength, but less soft tissue devitalization, the PARS may be a favorable option for patients with risk factors for soft tissue complications.</description><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Tendons</subject><issn>2473-0114</issn><issn>2473-0114</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1ks1u1DAQgCMEolXpA3BBlrhw2eJxHMc-oWXFT8VKlarC1bKdya6XJA52UsStDwIv1ychYUtpQZxszXzzeTyaLHsK9ASgLF8yXuYUgLMcQEoA9iA7nGOLOfjwzv0gO05pRymFslBKysfZQV4WVFDFDrN0jv1oG-_M4ENHQk2ur74vyWsfWnRb002JhqxC25vo0x5Y-9YPWJGzHjvyCWMaE_kQjfscvpLJZnwkdYhk6ba-aTCRC-yqqfJ87Icx4vXVjyfZo9o0CY9vzqPs49s3F6v3i_XZu9PVcr1wnEu2EDZHlKyqeWWVBe7QSVZSrAxCiaCKSlWK1bbk0oCtS1E5yg1VYHNl6gLyo-x0762C2ek--tbEbzoYr38FQtxoEwfvGtSiyI2y1tSUO64ENQqEFXmBFgARi8n1au-aptVi5bAbomnuSe9nOr_Vm3CpgeZCAZ27eXFjiOHLiGnQrU8Om8Z0GMakmeScKlHAjD7_C92FMXbTrDRTjDKQXJQTBXvKxZBSxPq2G6B6XhH9z4pMNc_ufuO24vdCTMDJHkhmg3-e_b_xJ5lfxfo</recordid><startdate>20230701</startdate><enddate>20230701</enddate><creator>Dekker, Robert G.</creator><creator>Qin, Charles</creator><creator>Lawton, Cort</creator><creator>Muriuki, Muturi G.</creator><creator>Havey, Robert M.</creator><creator>Alshouli, Mohammed</creator><creator>Patwardhan, Avinash G.</creator><creator>Kadakia, Anish</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publishing</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230701</creationdate><title>Republication of “A Biomechanical Comparison of Limited Open Versus Krackow Repair for Achilles Tendon Rupture”</title><author>Dekker, Robert G. ; Qin, Charles ; Lawton, Cort ; Muriuki, Muturi G. ; Havey, Robert M. ; Alshouli, Mohammed ; Patwardhan, Avinash G. ; Kadakia, Anish</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-6b3ee82df4db9b14cec8270edae17e195d9d92fb748a1bf76dc04a091b39af513</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Tendons</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dekker, Robert G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qin, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lawton, Cort</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muriuki, Muturi G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Havey, Robert M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alshouli, Mohammed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patwardhan, Avinash G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kadakia, Anish</creatorcontrib><collection>SAGE Journals Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (ProQuest Medical & Health Databases)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Foot & ankle orthopaedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dekker, Robert G.</au><au>Qin, Charles</au><au>Lawton, Cort</au><au>Muriuki, Muturi G.</au><au>Havey, Robert M.</au><au>Alshouli, Mohammed</au><au>Patwardhan, Avinash G.</au><au>Kadakia, Anish</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Republication of “A Biomechanical Comparison of Limited Open Versus Krackow Repair for Achilles Tendon Rupture”</atitle><jtitle>Foot & ankle orthopaedics</jtitle><addtitle>Foot Ankle Orthop</addtitle><date>2023-07-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>24730114231188112</spage><epage>24730114231188112</epage><pages>24730114231188112-24730114231188112</pages><issn>2473-0114</issn><eissn>2473-0114</eissn><abstract>Background:
Soft tissue complications after Achilles tendon repair has led to increased interest in less invasive techniques. Various limited open techniques have gained popularity as an alternative to open operative repair. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare an open Krackow and limited open repair for Achilles tendon rupture. We hypothesized that there would be no statistical difference in load to failure, work to failure, and initial linear stiffness.
Methods:
A simulated Achilles tendon rupture was created 4 cm proximal to its insertion in 18 fresh-frozen cadaveric below-knee lower limbs. Specimens were randomized to open or limited open PARS Achilles Jig System repair. Repairs were loaded to failure at a rate of 25.4 mm/s to reflect loading during normal ankle range of motion. Load to failure, work to failure, and initial linear stiffness were compared between the 2 repair types.
Results:
The average load to failure (353.8 ± 88.8 N vs 313.3 ± 99.9 N; P = .38) and work to failure (6.4 ± 2.3 J vs 6.3 ± 3.5 J; P = .904) were not statistically different for Krackow and PARS repair, respectively. Mean initial linear stiffness of the Krackow repair (17.8 ± 5.4 N/mm) was significantly greater than PARS repair (11.8 ± 2.5 N/mm) (P = .011).
Conclusion:
No significant difference in repair strength was seen, but higher initial linear stiffness for Krackow repair suggests superior resistance to gap formation, which may occur during postoperative rehabilitation. With equal repair strength, but less soft tissue devitalization, the PARS may be a favorable option for patients with risk factors for soft tissue complications.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>37506092</pmid><doi>10.1177/24730114231188112</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2473-0114 |
ispartof | Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2023-07, Vol.8 (3), p.24730114231188112-24730114231188112 |
issn | 2473-0114 2473-0114 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_653a9bbaf04c4960a916b635eb11eee5 |
source | Open Access: PubMed Central; Publicly Available Content Database; SAGE Journals Open Access |
subjects | Biomechanics Tendons |
title | Republication of “A Biomechanical Comparison of Limited Open Versus Krackow Repair for Achilles Tendon Rupture” |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T13%3A30%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Republication%20of%20%E2%80%9CA%20Biomechanical%20Comparison%20of%20Limited%20Open%20Versus%20Krackow%20Repair%20for%20Achilles%20Tendon%20Rupture%E2%80%9D&rft.jtitle=Foot%20&%20ankle%20orthopaedics&rft.au=Dekker,%20Robert%20G.&rft.date=2023-07-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=24730114231188112&rft.epage=24730114231188112&rft.pages=24730114231188112-24730114231188112&rft.issn=2473-0114&rft.eissn=2473-0114&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/24730114231188112&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2920218467%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-6b3ee82df4db9b14cec8270edae17e195d9d92fb748a1bf76dc04a091b39af513%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2920218467&rft_id=info:pmid/37506092&rft_sage_id=10.1177_24730114231188112&rfr_iscdi=true |