Recovery of walking capacity after Achilles tendon rupture: a pedobarographic and temporospatial comparison of minimally invasive and percutaneous repair
- 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kartal Dr. Lütfi Kırdar City Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye
- 2Department of Biostatistics, Marmara University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Türkiye
- 3Orthopaedics and Traumatology Clinic, Banaz State Hospital, Uşak, Türkiye
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare postoperative functional recovery following minimally invasive technique (MIT) and percutaneous technique (PT) repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures using quantitative pedobarographic and temporospatial parameters and clinical outcome measures.
Methods: This retrospective comparative cohort study included 32 patients (17 male, 15 female; mean age 40.9 years) who underwent surgical repair of an acute unilateral Achilles tendon rupture between January 2019 and December 2022. Patients aged 18–64 years who underwent primary repair with either MIT or PT within 1 week of injury and had complete 36-month clinical, pedobarographic, and temporospatial follow-up data were included. Patients with chronic ruptures, pre-existing tendinopathy of rheumatological or genetic origin, bilateral injury or severe contralateral ankle pathology, subsequent rerupture, or incomplete follow-up or medical records were excluded. Eighteen patients underwent MIT and 14 underwent PT. All patients completed the 36-month follow-up, with clinical, pedobarographic, and temporospatial assessments performed at 12, 24, and 36 months as part of the institution’s routine standardized postoperative clinical care pathway. The primary parameters were walking speed and heel pressure. Additional pedobarographic and temporospatial parameters included cadence, step length, forefoot pressure, stance phase, and swing phase. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score.
Results: AOFAS scores, VAS pain scores, heel pressure, and walking speed improved significantly over time in both groups (time effect, all P<0.001). AOFAS scores were higher (P=0.002) and VAS pain scores were lower (P<0.001) in the MIT group throughout follow-up. Walking speed was significantly higher in the MIT group at 12, 24, and 36 months (all P<0.001), although the between-group difference narrowed by 36 months. Step length was also greater in the MIT group at all follow-up assessments (all P≤0.011). Cadence, heel pressure, forefoot pressure, and gait-cycle phase parameters were largely comparable between groups.
Conclusion: Both MIT and PT were associated with progressive clinical and functional improvement over 36 months following acute Achilles tendon rupture repair. MIT was associated with faster recovery of walking capacity, particularly during the early-to-intermediate postoperative period, whereas heel-loading recovery was comparable between techniques. Clinically, MIT may be considered when faster recovery of walking capacity is prioritized, while PT remains a valid alternative with comparable heel-loading recovery.
Cite this article as: Yigit O, Canbaz SB, Erem M, et al. Recovery of walking capacity after Achilles tendon rupture: a pedobarographic and temporospatial comparison of minimally invasive and percutaneous repair. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2026; 60(5), 0921, doi: 10.5152/j.aott.2026.26921.
Related
- Endoscopic and percutaneous minimally invasive repair of pars interarticularis defects: a systematic review of clinical outcomes
- Clinical curative effect of B-ultrasound-guided minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and its influences on stone clearance rate in patients with complex kidney stones.
- Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization and minimally invasive multivessel CABG for multivessel coronary artery disease
- Intra-Patient Comparison of a Minimally Invasive Lid Treatment and Traditional Blepharoplasty: Patient and Surgeon-Reported Outcomes
- Research trends in minimally invasive partial splenectomy: a bibliometric mapping review with cross-database comparison
BibTeX
@article{yigit2026recovery,
title = {{Recovery of walking capacity after Achilles tendon rupture: a pedobarographic and temporospatial comparison of minimally invasive and percutaneous repair}},
author = {Okan Yiğit and Sebati Baser Canbaz and Merthan Erem and Emrah Gokay Özgür and Berkin Günar and Ömer Hekim and Servet İğrek and Engin Eceviz},
journal = {Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.5152/j.aott.2026.26921},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2026.26921},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Recovery of walking capacity after Achilles tendon rupture: a pedobarographic and temporospatial comparison of minimally invasive and percutaneous repair
AU - Okan Yiğit
AU - Sebati Baser Canbaz
AU - Merthan Erem
AU - Emrah Gokay Özgür
AU - Berkin Günar
AU - Ömer Hekim
AU - Servet İğrek
AU - Engin Eceviz
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/23
JO - Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica
DO - 10.5152/j.aott.2026.26921
UR - https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2026.26921
AB - Objective: This study aimed to compare postoperative functional recovery following minimally invasive technique (MIT) and percutaneous technique (PT) repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures using quantitative pedobarographic and temporospatial parameters and clinical outcome measures. Methods: This retrospective comparative cohort study included 32 patients (17 male, 15 female; mean age 40.9 years) who underwent surgical repair of an acute unilateral Achilles tendon rupture between January 2019 and December 2022. Patients aged 18–64 years who underwent primary repair with either MIT or PT within 1 week of injury and had complete 36-month clinical, pedobarographic, and temporospatial follow-up data were included. Patients with chronic ruptures, pre-existing tendinopathy of rheumatological or genetic origin, bilateral injury or severe contralateral ankle pathology, subsequent rerupture, or incomplete follow-up or medical records were excluded. Eighteen patients underwent MIT and 14 underwent PT. All patients completed the 36-month follow-up, with clinical, pedobarographic, and temporospatial assessments performed at 12, 24, and 36 months as part of the institution’s routine standardized postoperative clinical care pathway. The primary parameters were walking speed and heel pressure. Additional pedobarographic and temporospatial parameters included cadence, step length, forefoot pressure, stance phase, and swing phase. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score. Results: AOFAS scores, VAS pain scores, heel pressure, and walking speed improved significantly over time in both groups (time effect, all P<0.001). AOFAS scores were higher (P=0.002) and VAS pain scores were lower (P<0.001) in the MIT group throughout follow-up. Walking speed was significantly higher in the MIT group at 12, 24, and 36 months (all P<0.001), although the between-group difference narrowed by 36 months. Step length was also greater in the MIT group at all follow-up assessments (all P≤0.011). Cadence, heel pressure, forefoot pressure, and gait-cycle phase parameters were largely comparable between groups. Conclusion: Both MIT and PT were associated with progressive clinical and functional improvement over 36 months following acute Achilles tendon rupture repair. MIT was associated with faster recovery of walking capacity, particularly during the early-to-intermediate postoperative period, whereas heel-loading recovery was comparable between techniques. Clinically, MIT may be considered when faster recovery of walking capacity is prioritized, while PT remains a valid alternative with comparable heel-loading recovery. Cite this article as: Yigit O, Canbaz SB, Erem M, et al. Recovery of walking capacity after Achilles tendon rupture: a pedobarographic and temporospatial comparison of minimally invasive and percutaneous repair. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2026; 60(5), 0921, doi: 10.5152/j.aott.2026.26921.
SN - 1017-995X
SN - 2589-1294
ER -