[The efficiency of total endoscopic surgery with preferential incision of the tendon sheath and traditional open surgery for the treatment of peroneal tendondislocation]

Abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes between the patients of peroneal tendon dislocation treated by either total endoscopic surgery with preferential incision of the tendon sheath or traditional open surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. The clinical data of 45 patients with peroneal tendon dislocation were operated on Department of Sports Medicine and Joint Surgery, Nanjing First Hospital from July 2016 to June 2020. There were 26 males and 19 females,aged (31.2±9.3) years (range: 17 to 45 years). Among them,23 patients underwent open peroneal tendon groove deepening followed by tendon sheath repair(traditional open group), and the other 22 patients underwent similar operations but all-endoscopically with preferential incision of peroneal tendon sheath(total endoscopic group). The perioperative data of patients were collected, and pain visual analogue score (VAS) was used to evaluate the pain changes before and after surgery and during the follow-up period, and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society anklehindfoot scale (AOFAS-AH), range of motion (ROM), the MOS item short form health survey (SF)-36, and the homemade questionnaire of patient satisfaction were used to evaluate the patients' outcomes after the operation, and CT scan was carried out to observe the deepening of the fibular groove and MRI to observe the status of the peroneal tendon and sheath during the follow-up. Independent sample t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test and repeated measure ANOVA were used for comparison of quantitative data between groups. Chi-square test,Mann-whitney U or Fisher exact test was used for comparison of classified data, respectively;and paired sample t test was used for comparison of quantitative data before and after surgery in groups. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups of patients in terms of gender, age, disease duration, side of injury, and injury typing (all P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation time((47.9±5.4)minutes vs. (47.2±6.3)minutes;t=0.402, P=0.690), but the incision length ((2.17±0.35)cm vs. 5.97±0.42)cm;t=32.892,P<0.01)and hospitalization time ((4.0±1.7)days vs. (7.6±3.6)days;t=4.249,P<0.01) were significantly shorter in the total endoscopic group than those in the traditional open group. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months, and the follow-up time was (19.2±3.9) months (range: 12 to 24 months). The total endoscopic group showed a significant increase in VAS, AOFAS scores, SF-36 scores and patient satisfaction rate at 3 months postoperatively and the last follow-up (all P<0.05). Three months after surgery, the ROM in the total endoscope group was higher than that in the traditional group ((62.14±1.46) ° vs. (53.13±1.52) °;t=20.315, P<0.01), and there was no significant difference between the two groups at the last follow-up ((63.18±1.10) ° vs. (63.48±2.43) °;t=0.531, P=0.599). Conclusion: Total endoscopic surgery with preferential incision of the tendon sheath has the advantages of minimally invasivenessas compared with traditional open surgery with faster recovery and better outcome.