{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05229357798165138, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029357798165137616, 'mean_word_length': 4.929347826086956, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Percutaneous versus Open Tendo Achillis Repair

A retrospective analysis was conducted comparing open and percutaneous repair of ruptured Achilles tendon, over a 14-year period. One hundred and eight patients were identified; 70 underwent traditional open repair and 38 had a modified Ma & Griffith repair. The mean operating time with percutaneous repair was 28.5 minutes compared to 45.9 in the open group (p = < .0001). Comparable results were obtained in a subjective analysis of range of movement, stiffness, and power in both groups at time of discharge from clinic. In the open group there were four cases of rerupture (5.7%), four deep infections (4.7%), two palpable suture knots (2.9%), and one sural nerve lesion (1.4%). Complications with percutaneous repair included one rerupture (2.6%), five palpable suture knots (13.2%), four transient sural nerve lesions (10.5%), and no wound infections. There was no statistical significance between the two groups. The authors advocate percutaneous repair, in experienced hands, as a suitable alternative to traditional open techniques.