Operative versus conservative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: preliminary results of clinical outcome, kinematic MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.
Achilles tendon
Acute Achilles tendon rupture
Clinical outcome
Conservative treatment
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound
Kinematic MRI
Operative treatment
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
received:
04
02
2022
accepted:
15
04
2022
medline:
19
4
2023
pubmed:
15
5
2022
entrez:
14
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is no uniform consensus on the gold standard therapy for acute Achilles tendon rupture. The aim of this pilot study was to compare operative and conservative treatment regarding imaging findings and clinical outcome. Surgically or conservatively treated patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture were retrospectively evaluated. Differences in tendon length and diameter with and without load were analysed using kinematic MRI, tendon perfusion, structural alterations, movement and scar tissue by means of grey-scale and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Intra- and interobserver agreement were recorded. No significant difference was detected regarding clinical outcome, B mode ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced sonography or MRI findings, although alterations in MRI-based measurements of tendon elasticity were found for both groups. Considerable elongation and thickening of the injured tendon were detected in both groups. Both, conservative and surgical treatment showed comparable outcomes in our preliminary results and may suggest non-inferiority of a conservative approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35567608
doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04457-7
pii: 10.1007/s00402-022-04457-7
pmc: PMC10110640
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2455-2465Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013 Nov-Dec;52(6):736-9
pubmed: 23965178
Eur Radiol. 2012 Aug;22(8):1803-11
pubmed: 22411306
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Sep;44(9):2406-14
pubmed: 27307495
Phys Sportsmed. 2020 Sep;48(3):290-297
pubmed: 31662010
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Mar - Apr;56(2):395-397
pubmed: 28089129
World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Jan 7;17(1):28-41
pubmed: 21218081
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Sep 20;99(18):1509-1515
pubmed: 28926379
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Jul 3;94(13):1229-33
pubmed: 22760392
Am J Sports Med. 2021 Nov;49(13):3728-3748
pubmed: 33783229
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Oct;87(10):2202-10
pubmed: 16203884
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Dec 5;94(23):2136-43
pubmed: 23224384
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019 Nov;58(6):1229-1234
pubmed: 31679677
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Mar;35(3):421-6
pubmed: 17158277
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Aug;93(8):1071-8
pubmed: 21768631
Invest Radiol. 2001 Jan;36(1):50-5
pubmed: 11176261
Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Apr;32(4):337-43
pubmed: 21733434
Int Orthop. 1989;13(3):161-5
pubmed: 2633778
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Dec;24(12):3730-3737
pubmed: 25697284
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 May;141(5):751-760
pubmed: 32367375
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Aug 26;21(1):580
pubmed: 32847567
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Mar;141(3):383-401
pubmed: 32266518
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Jul;26(7):2051-2058
pubmed: 29079961
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022 Jul;142(7):1337-1349
pubmed: 33484315
Bone Joint Res. 2018 Nov 03;7(10):561-569
pubmed: 30464836
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2000;8(6):364-9
pubmed: 11147155
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2003 Dec;7(4):249-76
pubmed: 14735425
J Mol Biol. 1985 Apr 20;182(4):589-96
pubmed: 4009715
BMJ. 2019 Jan 07;364:k5120
pubmed: 30617123
J Ultrasound Med. 2021 Mar;40(3):491-501
pubmed: 32785982
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Nov;94(45):e1951
pubmed: 26559266
J Clin Ultrasound. 2011 Mar-Apr;39(3):141-5
pubmed: 21283996
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 1996 Oct;25(10):709-11
pubmed: 8922171