4.5 Article

Reconstruction for chronic Achilles tendinopathy: comparison of flexor hallucis longus (FHL) transfer versus V-Y advancement

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 829-834

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3834-x

Keywords

Achilles tendinopathy; Flexor hallucis longus; V-Y advancement

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several operative techniques exist for Achilles tendinopathy. The purpose of our study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of flexor hallucis longus (FHL) transfer and V-Y advancement for the treatment of chronic insertional Achilles tendinopathy. Retrospective chart review from 2010 to 2016 of patients that underwent FHL transfer or V-Y advancement for chronic insertional Achilles tendinopathy. Outcome measures were compared for these two procedures. In total, 46 patients (49 ankles) with a mean age of 55.0 (range 33-73) years. Mean follow-up time 44.7 +/- 25.5 months. FHL group had 21 patients (21 ankles) with 89% satisfaction, 14% complication rate, final VAS of 0.4, final VISA-A of 89.1, subjective strength improvement following surgery of 78%, and 94% would recommend the procedure. V-Y group had 25 patients (28 ankles) with 74% subjective satisfaction, 21% complication rate, final VAS of 1.4, final VISA-A of 78.4, subjective strength improvement following surgery of 67%, and 84% would recommend the procedure. There was no significant difference in any of the results rates between the two groups (p > .05). V-Y advancement is comparable to FHL transfer for the operative management of insertional Achilles tendinopathy. Though our results trend towards less satisfactory results following V-Y advancement, we found high satisfaction rates with similar functional outcomes and complication rates in both operative groups. We suggest considering V-Y advancement as a viable option for the primary treatment of chronic insertional Achilles tendinopathy in patients who may not be an ideal candidate for FHL transfer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available