https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5827-8847
Figures
Abstract
Objective
To compare the rerupture rate after conservative treatment, open repair, and minimally invasive surgery management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures.
Data sources
We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2022.
Methods
Randomised controlled trials involving different treatments for Achilles tendon rupture were included. The primary outcome was rerupture. Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects was used to assess pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals. We evaluated the heterogeneity and publication bias.
Results
Thirteen trials with 1465 patients were included. In direct comparison, there was no difference between open repair and minimally invasive surgery for rerupture rate (RR, 0.72, 95% CI 0.10–4.4; I2 = 0%; Table 2). Compared to the conservative treatment, the RR was 0.27 (95% CI 0.10–0.62, I2 = 0%) for open repair and 0.14 (95% CI 0.01–0.88, I2 = 0%) for minimally invasive surgery. The network meta-analysis had obtained the similar results as the direct comparison.
Citation: Deng H, Cheng X, Yang Y, Fang F, He J, Tian Y, et al. (2023) Rerupture outcome of conservative versus open repair versus minimally invasive repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18(5): e0285046. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285046
Editor: Daniel Ramskov, Professionshøjskolen UCN: Professionshojskolen UCN, DENMARK
Received: December 8, 2022; Accepted: April 14, 2023; Published: May 2, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Deng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All files are available from the PubMed database (DOIs: 10.1056/NEJMoa2108447, 10.1007/s00402-020-03461-z, 10.1302/0301-620X.102B7.BJJ-2019-0783.R3, 10.1016/j.fas.2019.07.011, 10.1053/j.jfas.2019.02.002, 10.1177/1071100718757971, 10.1177/0363546516651060, 10.1007/s00264-012-1737-9, 10.1007/s00590-013-1350-7, 10.1177/0363546513503282, 10.1302/0301-620X.93B8.25998, 10.2106/JBJS.I.01401, 10.1177/0363546510376052).
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Although Achilles tendon is the strongest and thickest tendon, it is one of the most common tendon ruptures with an annual incidence of 37 to 50 per 100 000 persons, with the largest increase occurring in the middle-aged people [1–3].
Currently available treatments for Achilles tendon ruptures include conservative treatment and two types of surgical repair, open repair and minimally invasive surgery with the percutaneous and mini-open techniques [4, 5]. The risk of rerupture has been a major concern in the shared decisions making process between patient and physician. A recent meta-analysis showed that nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture has a higher risk of rerupture compared with operative treatment [6]. However, what types of surgical repair have a lower rerupture rate is still unclear.
Most recent systematic reviews comparing surgical techniques found that no relevant discrepancies were detected in terms of rerupture between open repair and minimally invasive surgery [7, 8]. Yet the majority of patients included in these meta-analyses were treated before 2010, with earlier generation devices. These meta-analyses may have represented earlier experience with Achilles tendon ruptures treatment. Since 2010, the percutaneous Achilles Repair System and several minimally invasive techniques have been described [5]. The development of surgical techniques and rehabilitation protocols in the last decade may contribute to lower odds of rerupture [9, 10].
Network Meta-Analyses is a quantitative data synthesis approach that enables both direct and indirect evaluation of multiple intervention models, hence providing more comprehensive insights into the clinical efficacy and acceptability of interventions [11–13]. We carried out this network meta-analysis to compare the rerupture rate after conservative treatment, open repair, and minimally invasive surgery of acute Achilles tendon ruptures.
Methods
Protocol and guidance
This systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for reporting systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis [14]. The protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42022340654).
Data sources
We performed a comprehensive search to studies indexed until August 2022 in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the electronic database. We limited the search to humans, and all publications were made in English. The specifics of search terms were shown in the S1 Table.
Eligibility criteria
We included all published RCTs when they met the following criteria:
- Participants: (1) enrolled patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture; (2) patients were aged 16 years or older; (3) comparing different treatment options (conservative treatment, open repair treatment, or minimally invasive surgery); (4) within four weeks of rupture; (5) reported of re-rupture rate; (6) Studies published before 2010 were excluded.
- Interventions: open repair, minimally invasive surgery
- Comparison: Conservative
- Outcomes: The primary outcome was rerupture rate. Secondary outcomes included wound infection, sural nerve injury, and deep vein thrombosis.
Study selection
Two reviewers independently (XC and HD) selected studies by screening titles and abstracts and evaluating potential full-text. For research that has several publications, we included only the studies with the most informative and complete data. Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by discussion or consulting a third author (YZ).
Data collection process
Two reviewers (XC and HD) extracted data independently using a standardized form, including the type of study, intervention details and control characteristics, sample size, mean age, outcome measures, and follow-up intervals. A third reviewer examined the extracted data for mistakes. The consensus was reached during meetings.
Risk of bias assessment
Two reviewers (XC and HD) independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool across seven domains [15, 16]. Each trial received a study-level score of low, high, or unclear risk of bias for each domain. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, and a third author (YZ) gave a final judgment if no consensus was achieved.
Data synthesis
This network meta-analysis was performed by using R software (version 4.1.0) with the package gemtc (version 1.0–1) that based on Bayesian framework. R software interfaces with JAGS software (version 4.3.0) were applied to computing Markov chain Monte Carlo operation to conduct a multiple treatments comparison [17].
For pairwise meta-analysis, we used a random effects model to compute pooled effect sizes, and risk ratio for outcomes with 95% confidence intervals.
For network meta-analysis, we used a random consistency model to compute the study effect sizes, and binomial likelihood arguments for the rerupture outcome [18]. Treatment effects were estimated using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals [19].
Specifically, we established 4 independent Markov chains with over dispersed initial values, 50,000 simulations for each chain were discarded as burn-in period. Then, 100,000 sample iterations per chain simultaneously to ensure model convergence. The Brooks-Gelman-Rubin plots approach was used to evaluate model convergence, with the potential scale reduction factor (PSRF) serving as the assessment indicator [20]. PSRF values close to one indicate the complete convergence effect of the model.
We used node-splitting analysis to determine the inconsistency of the model between direct and indirect comparisons [21]. P-value less than 0.05 suggests the consistency of the model is satisfactory.
We also assessed the global heterogeneity, using the anohe function of the ‘gemtc’ package to calculate the bias of the magnitude of heterogeneity variance parameter I2.
To assess the transitivity assumption, we examined the distribution of clinical and methodological characteristics. (e.g., age, sex, treatment protocol).
Results
Characteristics of included studies
Fig 1 shows the specific study screening flowchart. A total of 737 citations were identified from the databases. After removing duplicates and screening the title and abstract, 33 studies were selected for a full-text review. Finally, 13 trials met the inclusion eligibility criteria [22–34]. The included studies were published between 2010 and 2022. The length of time post-operative that the most studies we included was about 12 to 24 months.
Fig 2 presents the network plot. The 13 studies included 1465 patients, of whom 500 were conservative treatment, 583 were treated with open repair, and 340 were treated with minimally invasive surgery. The characteristics of included randomized controlled trials were displayed in Table 1.
The network geometry for risk of rerupture. The number of participants is showed by n = below the treatment name. Width of the lines is proportional to the number of trials informing an indicated comparison and is specified with the number adjacent the edge.
Risk of bias in included studies
S6 and S7 Figs showed the risk-of-bias assessments. Five trials were low risk of bias, four trials were unclear risk, and four trials were high risk. The primary bias was the blinding of outcome assessment.
Rerupture
The pair-wise meta-analysis pooled effects showed that no difference between open repair and minimally invasive surgery for rerupture rate (RR, 0.72, 95% CI 0.10–4.4; I2 = 0%; Table 2). Compared to the conservative treatment, the RR was 0.27 (95% CI 0.10–0.62, I2 = 0%) for open repair and 0.14 (95% CI 0.01–0.88, I2 = 0%) for minimally invasive surgery. The network meta-analysis had obtained the similar results as the direct comparison (S1 Fig). No statistically significant differences were found in rerupture rate between open repair and minimally invasive surgery.
Other outcomes
Compared to conservative treatment, open repair management had significant higher infection rate, with very wide confidence intervals (S3 Fig). There was a significant difference between conservative treatment and open repair management in deep vein thrombosis complication (S4 Fig). We have not found any significant difference in sural nerve injury (S5 Fig).
Model fit and evaluation of consistency
The PSRF value was 1.000, indicating a strong iterative effect, complete convergence, and stable model outputs (S2 Fig).
The node-splitting analysis showed that there was no inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons among conservative, open repair, and minimally invasive surgery with P > 0.05 (Fig 3). There was also no existence of heterogeneity in the direct and indirect comparisons (S2 Table). The global I- squared was 0.
Summary of a node-splitting analysis consisting of separate node-splitting models and a consistency model.
Discussion
Principal findings
This systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs performed a comparison among conservative treatment versus open repair versus minimally invasive surgery for acute Achilles tendon ruptures. The mixed results showed that both open repair and minimally invasive surgery were associated with a significant reduction in rerupture rate compared with conservative management, but no difference in rerupture rate was found comparing open repair and minimally invasive surgery.
Comparison with previous findings
The previous study has demonstrated that operative treatment (open repair and minimally invasive surgery) of acute Achilles tendon ruptures could reduce the risk of re-rupture compared with nonoperative treatment [6]. Still, which types of surgical repair have a lower rerupture rate is unknown. Meulenkamp et al. [35] performed an network meta-analysis based on the best available evidence to guide the management of acute achilles tendon ruptures. The risk of rerupture outcome showed that there was no difference in rerupture risk between open surgical repair, minimally invasive surgery repair, and functional rehabilitation. Yet, primary immobilization was associated with a higher rerupture risk than open repair. However, they did not include the current largest RCT that compared nonoperative treatment, open repair, and minimally invasive surgery in patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture. More recently, Gatz et al. [8] conducted a meta-analysis that included RCTs and observational studies, including 25 studies with a total of 2223 patients, and Attia et al. [7] performed a meta-analysis included RCTs only, including 10 trials with a total of 522 patients. Both studies compared the rerupture rate between open repair and minimally invasive surgery of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. The pooled effect showed no relevant differences in re-rupture rate between the two techniques.
Our review showed differences in design and settings. Firstly, this network meta-analysis used direct and indirect method to compare the risk of rerupture between conservative treatment, open repair, and minimally invasive surgery for acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Secondly, we excluded studies published before 2010 to eliminate the impact of early techniques and rehabilitation protocols. Thirdly, we only included RCTs to remove the inherent selection bias.
Limitations
As one of the primary causes of Achilles tendon surgical failure, we solely investigated the rate of re-rupture. We did not analyze other complications such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, sural nerve injury, wound infection, etc. We failed to obtain appropriate date to analyze the outcome of long-term rerupture rate due to those majority patients were followed up to 12 to 24 months. Additionally, we conducted a sensitive analysis to excluded the influence of the study that had 188 months follow-up. Through analysis, we obtained a similar result. We failed to examine the complication of Pulmonary embolism due to only two studies report it in this paper. The results of the network meta-analysis for indirect comparison, however, were met with low to very low levels of confidence, mostly because of imprecision around the effect estimates and within-study bias. The relative treatment estimates may vary as a result of future high-quality research, even if these first results are optimistic due to the low certainty of the evidence for rerupture.
Conclusion
The results of the present study suggest that both open repair and minimally invasive surgery were associated with a significant reduction in rerupture rate compared with conservative management, but no difference in rerupture rate was found comparing open repair and minimally invasive surgery.
Supporting information
S2 Table. Analysis of heterogeneity for rerupture rate.
T1: treatment 1; T2: treatment 2; I2.pair: I-square of pair-wise meta-analysis; I2.cons: I-square of network meta-analysis; Incons.p: inconsistency p-values for pair-wise and network meta-analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285046.s002
(DOCX)
S1 Fig. Forest plot of re-rupture rate in network meta-analysis of achilles tendon ruptures.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285046.s003
(TIF)
S3 Fig. Node-splitting analysis of inconsistency for the wound infection.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285046.s005
(TIF)
S4 Fig. Node-splitting analysis of inconsistency for the deep vein thrombosis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285046.s006
(TIF)
S5 Fig. Node-splitting analysis of inconsistency for the sural nerve injury.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285046.s007
(TIF)
S1 Checklist. PRISMA NMA checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review involving a network meta-analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285046.s010
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Egger AC, Berkowitz MJ. Achilles tendon injuries. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10(1):72–80. Epub 2017/02/15. pmid:28194638
- 2. Huttunen TT, Kannus P, Rolf C, Felländer-Tsai L, Mattila VM. Acute achilles tendon ruptures: incidence of injury and surgery in Sweden between 2001 and 2012. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2419–23. Epub 2014/07/25. pmid:25056989.
- 3. Houshian S, Tscherning T, Riegels-Nielsen P. The epidemiology of Achilles tendon rupture in a Danish county. Injury. 1998;29(9):651–4. Epub 1999/04/22. pmid:10211195.
- 4. Park SH, Lee HS, Young KW, Seo SG. Treatment of Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture. Clin Orthop Surg. 2020;12(1):1–8. Epub 2020/03/03. pmid:32117532
- 5. Patel MS, Kadakia AR. Minimally Invasive Treatments of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures. Foot Ankle Clin. 2019;24(3):399–424. Epub 2019/08/03. pmid:31370993.
- 6. Ochen Y, Beks RB, van Heijl M, Hietbrink F, Leenen LPH, van der Velde D, et al. Operative treatment versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj. 2019;364:k5120. Epub 2019/01/09. pmid:30617123 at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
- 7. Attia AK, Mahmoud K, d’Hooghe P, Bariteau J, Labib SA, Myerson MS. Outcomes and Complications of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Repair of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am J Sports Med. 2021:3635465211053619. Epub 2021/12/16. pmid:34908499.
- 8. Gatz M, Driessen A, Eschweiler J, Tingart M, Migliorini F. Open versus minimally-invasive surgery for Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(3):383–401. Epub 2020/04/09. pmid:32266518.
- 9. Hutchison AM, Topliss C, Beard D, Evans RM, Williams P. The treatment of a rupture of the Achilles tendon using a dedicated management programme. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-b(4):510–5. Epub 2015/03/31. pmid:25820890.
- 10. Aujla RS, Patel S, Jones A, Bhatia M. Non-operative functional treatment for acute Achilles tendon ruptures: The Leicester Achilles Management Protocol (LAMP). Injury. 2019;50(4):995–9. Epub 2019/03/23. pmid:30898390.
- 11. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. Bmj. 2005;331(7521):897–900. Epub 2005/10/15. pmid:16223826
- 12. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24. Epub 2004/09/28. pmid:15449338.
- 13. Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, Ravaud P. Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. Bmj. 2014;348:g1741. Epub 2014/03/13. pmid:24618053 at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
- 14. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84. Epub 2015/06/02. pmid:26030634.
- 15. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:Ed000142. Epub 2019/10/24. pmid:31643080.
- 16. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d5928. Epub 2011/10/20. pmid:22008217 at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare support from the Cochrane Collaboration for the development and evaluation of the tool described; they have no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
- 17. van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, Hillege H, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(4):285–99. Epub 2012/12/01. pmid:26053422.
- 18. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010;29(7–8):932–44. Epub 2010/03/10. pmid:20213715.
- 19. Warn DE, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1601–23. Epub 2002/07/12. pmid:12111922.
- 20. Brooks SP, Gelman A. General Methods for Monitoring Convergence of Iterative Simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics. 1998;7(4):434–55.
- 21. van Valkenhoef G, Dias S, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(1):80–93. Epub 2015/10/16. pmid:26461181
- 22. Myhrvold SB, Brouwer EF, Andresen TKM, Rydevik K, Amundsen M, Grün W, et al. Nonoperative or Surgical Treatment of Acute Achilles’ Tendon Rupture. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(15):1409–20. Epub 2022/04/14. pmid:35417636.
- 23. Fischer S, Colcuc C, Gramlich Y, Stein T, Abdulazim A, von Welck S, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial of open operative, minimally invasive and conservative treatments of acute Achilles tendon tear. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(5):751–60. Epub 2020/05/06. pmid:32367375.
- 24. Maempel JF, Clement ND, Wickramasinghe NR, Duckworth AD, Keating JF. Operative repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture does not give superior patient-reported outcomes to nonoperative management. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-b(7):933–40. Epub 2020/07/01. pmid:32600149.
- 25. Makulavičius A, Mazarevičius G, Klinga M, Urmanavičius M, Masionis P, Oliva XM, et al. Outcomes of open "crown" type v. percutaneous Bunnell type repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Randomized control study. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26(5):580–4. Epub 2019/09/25. pmid:31548150.
- 26. Manent A, López L, Corominas H, Santamaría A, Domínguez A, Llorens N, et al. Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures: Efficacy of Conservative and Surgical (Percutaneous, Open) Treatment-A Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;58(6):1229–34. Epub 2019/11/05. pmid:31679677.
- 27. Rozis M, Benetos IS, Karampinas P, Polyzois V, Vlamis J, Pneumaticos SG. Outcome of Percutaneous Fixation of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures. Foot Ankle Int. 2018;39(6):689–93. Epub 2018/03/13. pmid:29528724.
- 28. Lantto I, Heikkinen J, Flinkkila T, Ohtonen P, Siira P, Laine V, et al. A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Surgical and Nonsurgical Treatments of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(9):2406–14. Epub 2016/06/17. pmid:27307495.
- 29. Kołodziej L, Bohatyrewicz A, Kromuszczyńska J, Jezierski J, Biedroń M. Efficacy and complications of open and minimally invasive surgery in acute Achilles tendon rupture: a prospective randomised clinical study—preliminary report. Int Orthop. 2013;37(4):625–9. Epub 2012/12/20. pmid:23250350
- 30. Karabinas PK, Benetos IS, Lampropoulou-Adamidou K, Romoudis P, Mavrogenis AF, Vlamis J. Percutaneous versus open repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(4):607–13. Epub 2013/11/06. pmid:24190345.
- 31. Olsson N, Silbernagel KG, Eriksson BI, Sansone M, Brorsson A, Nilsson-Helander K, et al. Stable surgical repair with accelerated rehabilitation versus nonsurgical treatment for acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a randomized controlled study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(12):2867–76. Epub 2013/09/10. pmid:24013347.
- 32. Keating JF, Will EM. Operative versus non-operative treatment of acute rupture of tendo Achillis: a prospective randomised evaluation of functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(8):1071–8. Epub 2011/07/20. pmid:21768631.
- 33. Willits K, Amendola A, Bryant D, Mohtadi NG, Giffin JR, Fowler P, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a multicenter randomized trial using accelerated functional rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(17):2767–75. Epub 2010/11/03. pmid:21037028.
- 34. Nilsson-Helander K, Silbernagel KG, Thomeé R, Faxén E, Olsson N, Eriksson BI, et al. Acute achilles tendon rupture: a randomized, controlled study comparing surgical and nonsurgical treatments using validated outcome measures. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(11):2186–93. Epub 2010/08/31. pmid:20802094.
- 35. Meulenkamp B, Woolnough T, Cheng W, Shorr R, Stacey D, Richards M, et al. What Is the Best Evidence to Guide Management of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2021;479(10):2119–31. pmid:34180874