Purpose: To retrospectively compare the open end-to-end repair versus repair using the Mitek-anchor system in acute Achilles tendon rupture.
Method: Forty-seven consecutive patients with Achilles tendon rupture, all operated on between 2004 and 2005, were included. Their medical records were reviewed and they were interviewed for surveillance of post-operative function at follow-up. Functional outcome was determined using an adapted VISA tendinopathy questionnaire and by testing the isometric ankle plantar flexion strength. Post-operative complications and recurrence rate of rupture were noted.
Results: Seven patients were lost to follow-up. From a total of 40 patients, twenty-eight (68% of total) underwent classic repair and 12 (32%) were treated by the Mitek-anchor system. Median age was 43 years (range 29-63). Median post-operative follow-up was 29 months (range 17-40). Median time to resume work was nine weeks in the classic group versus 12 weeks in the Mitek-group. Median time to resume sports was 19 versus 31 weeks respectively. Wound infections occurred in five percent of the total (one in each group) and rupture recurrence rate was three percent of the total (nil in classic group, one in Mitek-group). Loss of strength in the injured leg compared to the non-injured leg was greater in the Mitek-group than in the classic group.
Conclusion: We conclude that in comparing classical end-to-end repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures with repair using Mitek-anchors, it took patients in the Mitek-group longer to return to work and sport activities than in the classic group. Greater loss of strength in the injured leg was seen in the Mitek-group. Therefore we do not advocate the use of Mitek-anchors for the repair of acute ruptured Achilles tendons.