Operative Treatment of Acute Patellar Tendon Ruptures

Abstract

Background: The gold standard for patellar tendon repair is a transosseous technique. Suture anchor repair has gained popularity, with recent biomechanical studies demonstrating significantly less gap formation during cyclic loading and significantly higher ultimate failure loads as compared with transosseous repair. These findings have not been substantiated in a large clinical cohort. Purpose: To report demographic and epidemiologic data, clinical and surgical findings, and outcomes and complications of anchor and transosseous suture repairs of acute patellar tendon ruptures. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All patients who underwent a primary repair of a traumatic patellar tendon rupture within 45 days of injury between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Surgery was performed at a multisurgeon (120 surgeons) multicenter (14 centers) community-based integrated health care system. Patient demographic information, repair type, complications, and time from surgery to release from medical care were recorded. Results: A total of 361 patients (374 knees) met our inclusion criteria. The mean age was 39.8 years (range, 9-86 years), and 91.7% were male. There were 321 transosseous and 53 anchor repairs. There was no significant difference in the mean age ( P = .27), sex ( P = .79), tourniquet time ( P = .93), or body mass index ( P = .78) between the groups. There was a significant difference in rerupture rate between transosseous and anchor repairs (7.5% vs 0%, respectively; P = .034). Based on logistic regression, transosseous repair had 3.24 times the odds of reoperation verseus anchor repair (95% CI, 0.757-13.895; P = .1129). The infection rate was 1.6% for transosseous repair and 7.5% for anchor repair ( P = .160). There was no difference in time to release from medical care: 18.4 weeks for anchor and 17.1 weeks for transosseous repairs ( P = .92). Conclusion: Anchor repair demonstrated a significant decrease in rerupture rate when compared with transosseous repair. There was no difference in reoperation rate, infection rate, or time to release from medical care.