Prospective randomized comparison of functional bracing versus rigid immobilization with early weightbearing after modified percutaneous achilles tendon repair under local anesthesia

Objective

The optimal treatment and rehabilitation strategy for acute Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) remain a debate. This study aimed to compare the results of the two postoperative regimens after treatment for ATR with modified closed percutaneous repair under local anesthesia.

Methods

In a 4-year study, 72 consecutive patients with acute complete ATR were randomized after percutaneous repair into a functional group (FG), using a modified brace (28 males, three females; mean age 41.9 [29–71] years) and an immobilization group (IG), wearing a rigid plaster (28 males, two females; mean age 42.2 [29–57] years), for a period of 6 weeks. Except for immobilization, they followed the same weight-bearing and rehabilitation protocols. The follow-up period was 3 years. The complication rate, active and passive ankle range of motion, standing heel-rise test, clinical outcome using the American Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot-ankle score, return to the previous activity level, and subjective assessment were assessed.

Results

There was one rerupture in the IG and two transient sural nerve disturbances in the FG and one in the IG, and one suture extrusion in the IG, with no other complications. The average AOFAS scores were 96.9 ± 4.3 and 96.0 ± 4.9 in the FG and IG, respectively. Patients in the FG reached a final range of motion and muscular strength sooner without limping and were more satisfied with the treatment. No significant differences could be detected between groups according to the results in any of the assessed parameters.

Conclusion

Early dynamic functional bracing in patients with ATR treated with modified closed percutaneous repair under local anesthesia resulted in earlier functional recovery with similar final results in terms of complications and functional outcomes, such as rigid postoperative immobilization with standardized rehabilitation and weight-bearing protocol.

Level of evidence

I, Prospective randomized study