No Loss of Strength After Insertional Achilles Tendon Reconstruction With Single-Anchor or Double-Row Repair.

Many different types of surgical repair for insertional Achilles tendinosis have been described. Strength after surgery is an essential factor for patient function and satisfaction. A retrospective series of patients that underwent surgery for insertional Achilles tendon surgery were contacted to come in for prospective strength testing, with the tester blinded to the type of surgery performed. Thirty-seven patients came in for testing, 24 with a single-anchor repair and 13 with a double-row repair. Strength of plantarflexion was tested at 60°/s and 120°/s and was compared. First each operative leg was compared to the nonoperative leg as a control. Then the percentage change, or symmetry, from the control leg to the operative leg was compared between those with a single-anchor and double-row repair. Satisfaction was also assessed with a simple questionnaire and compared the types of repair. The results demonstrated there was no statistically significant change in strength after surgery compared to the nonoperative leg, and there was no difference in limb symmetry between types of repair. Similarly, there was no difference between the groups in satisfaction. Our study showed that there is, on average, no loss of strength after insertional Achilles tendon surgery at an average follow-up of nearly 2 years, regardless of type of repair.

Family-centered cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women who undergo cesarean delivery report that they are less satisfied with their child birthing experience and have a later skin-to-skin contact. Because cesarean deliveries account for nearly one-fifth of all births globally, improving the child birthing experience is imperative. One delivery technique that may improve the child birthing experience, termed the family-centered cesarean, allows the mother to view the birth of her baby and to have the baby immediately placed on her chest following delivery. OBJECTIVE: Our primary outcome was to compare satisfaction with birthing experiences between women who underwent either a family-centered or traditional cesarean delivery. Our secondary outcomes compared timing of skin-to-skin contact, and maternal and neonatal outcomes between the 2 methods of cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: Pregnant women aged ≥18 years who had been admitted to Labor and Delivery with a planned cesarean delivery at 1 of 2 delivery units were prospectively enrolled. Women were randomized 1:1, but not blinded, to either the family-centered cesarean (Method 1; N=68) or traditional cesarean (Method 2; N=61). Time to skin-to-skin interactions and newborn vitals were recorded by a nurse at time of delivery. A self-administered questionnaire was provided to participants in the hospital on postpartum to obtain satisfaction with the birthing experience using a modified Likert scale, ranging from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Baseline characteristics and all other variables of interest were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Baseline characteristics, maternal satisfaction, and maternal or neonatal outcomes between methods of delivery were compared using t tests and Pearson chi-squared (or Fisher exact), as appropriate. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and July 2018, women who were randomized to either Method 1 or Method 2 did not significantly differ by baseline characteristics. This study was unable to detect a difference in satisfaction (4.6 Method 1 vs 4.4 Method 2; P=.27). However, mean time to skin-to-skin contact was significantly different. Patients in Method 1 established skin-to-skin contact on average 11.2 minutes earlier than those in Method 2 (5.1 vs 16.3; P<.01). No other differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: Although our study did not find statistical differences in maternal or newborn outcomes, including maternal satisfaction, the family-centered cesarean was significantly associated with earlier skin-to-skin contact. Given the known benefits of earlier skin-to-skin contact without associated harm, women should be allowed to choose either method of cesarean delivery based on their personal preference.

Ankle Stabilization With Arthroscopic Versus Open With Suture Tape Augmentation Techniques.

Ankle instability is a common problem that often leads to surgery to stabilize the ankle if conservative methods are unsuccessful in returning the patient to full activity. Surgical ankle stabilization, including arthroscopic and open methods, has been performed with overall excellent results reported. Although initial ligament strength after repair is weaker than the native ligament, new methods of augmentation with suture tape have yielded initial strength comparable to native ligament. The present study compares arthroscopic ankle stabilization and open stabilization with suture tape augmentation. A retrospective comparative trial was undertaken with a follow-up satisfaction survey. A total of 55 patients were ultimately included, consisting of 43 arthroscopic patients and 12 open with suture tape augmentation patients. Ancillary procedures are reported. The mean follow-up duration was 24.2 months in the arthroscopic group and 21 months in the open group. There was a statistically significantly faster return to activity/sports in the arthroscopic group (127.2 days vs 170 days; p = .008). Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward favoring the open group in terms of revision surgery and patient satisfaction. Our data indicate that both methods of stabilization are reasonable for ankle instability repair.