Biomechanical Comparison of All-Soft Suture Anchor Single-Row vs Double-Row Bridging Construct for Insertional Achilles Tendinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Two common operative fixation techniques for insertional Achilles tendinopathy are the use of all-soft suture anchors vs synthetic anchors with a suture bridge. Despite increasing emphasis on early postoperative mobilization, the biomechanical profile of these repairs is not currently known. We hypothesized that the biomechanical profiles of single-row all-soft suture anchor repairs would differ when compared to double-row suture bridge repairs. METHODS: Achilles tendons were detached from their calcaneal insertions on 6 matched-pair, fresh-frozen cadaver through-knee amputation specimens. Group 1 underwent a single-row repair with all-soft suture anchors. Group 2 was repaired with a double-row bridging suture bridge construct. Achilles-calcaneal displacement was tracked while specimens were cyclically loaded from 10 to 100 N for 2000 cycles and then loaded to failure. Linear mixed models were used to analyze the independent effects of age, body mass index, tendon morphology, repair construct, and footprint size on clinical and ultimate failure loads, Achilles-calcaneal displacement, and mode of failure. RESULTS: The suture bridge group was independently associated with an approximately 50-N increase in the load to clinical failure (defined as more than 5 mm tendon displacement). There was no difference in ultimate load to failure or tendon/anchor displacement between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: This cadaveric study found that a double-row synthetic bridge construct had less displacement during cyclic loading but was not able to carry more load before clinical failure when compared to a single-row suture anchor construct for the operative repair of insertional Achilles tendinopathy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our data suggest that double-row suture bridge constructs increase the load to clinical failure for operative repairs of insertional Achilles tendinopathy. It must be noted that these loads are well below what occurs during gait and the repair must be protected postoperatively without early mobilization. This study also identified several clinical factors that may help predict repair strength and inform further research.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a measure of health care quality that reflect the patient's perceptions of their own health status. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in implementation of PROs into everyday clinical practice. There are many dozens of PROs available to foot and ankle surgeons with little consensus on which measures are most appropriate for a given condition. These measures vary widely in length, validity, and content. When integrating PROs into clinical practice, we recommend that clinicians should collect, at a minimum, validated PRO scores that assess pain, function, and general health. Furthermore, concise instruments should be used wherever possible to minimize patient burden, maximize patient engagement, and ensure meaningful data are collected. In the near future, outcomes registries employing computer adaptive testing will facilitate the routine collection of PRO data from all patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Surgery.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a measure of health care quality that empower patients to share their health care perceptions with their providers. In orthopedic foot and ankle surgery, these measures can range from global assessments of pain or satisfaction to complex questionnaires designed to assess the function of specific anatomic regions or the recovery from specific procedures. This article seeks to characterize the use of PROs in foot and ankle surgery, describe some of the most commonly used measures, discuss implementation in everyday clinical practice, and explore the future of PROs in foot and ankle orthopedics.