Fast Functional Rehabilitation Protocol versus Plaster Cast Immobilization Protocol after Achilles Tendon Tenorrhaphy: Is It Different? Clinical, Ultrasonographic, and Elastographic Comparison.
Achilles tendon
early rehabilitation
elastosonography
rupture
surgical repair
ultrasonography
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jul 2022
29 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
04
07
2022
revised:
25
07
2022
accepted:
26
07
2022
entrez:
26
8
2022
pubmed:
27
8
2022
medline:
27
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
the incidence of Achilles tendon (AT) rupture is rising; however, there is no clear consensus regarding the optimal treatment. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare instrumental and patient-reported outcome scores after fast functional rehabilitation (group A) versus plaster cast immobilization (group B) programs in patients who underwent AT tenorrhaphy. 33 patients, with similar clinical and demographic features, underwent open AT tenorrhaphy between January and July 2018. Of these, 15 patients were treated with fast functional rehabilitation program (group A), and 18 patients were treated with plaster cast immobilization protocol (group B). Sural triceps hypotrophy and functional scores (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score, and Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS)) were recorded at a 12-month follow-up. Ultrasonography (US) and elastosonography (ES) were used to compare the characteristics of the tendons after surgery. At 12 months, no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes or the instrumental measurement tests were seen between the two groups. fast functional rehabilitation after AT surgical repair is safe, effective, and may be the first choice of treatment, especially in young, collaborative, and active patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
the incidence of Achilles tendon (AT) rupture is rising; however, there is no clear consensus regarding the optimal treatment. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare instrumental and patient-reported outcome scores after fast functional rehabilitation (group A) versus plaster cast immobilization (group B) programs in patients who underwent AT tenorrhaphy.
METHODS
METHODS
33 patients, with similar clinical and demographic features, underwent open AT tenorrhaphy between January and July 2018. Of these, 15 patients were treated with fast functional rehabilitation program (group A), and 18 patients were treated with plaster cast immobilization protocol (group B). Sural triceps hypotrophy and functional scores (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score, and Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS)) were recorded at a 12-month follow-up. Ultrasonography (US) and elastosonography (ES) were used to compare the characteristics of the tendons after surgery.
RESULTS
RESULTS
At 12 months, no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes or the instrumental measurement tests were seen between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
fast functional rehabilitation after AT surgical repair is safe, effective, and may be the first choice of treatment, especially in young, collaborative, and active patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36010175
pii: diagnostics12081824
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12081824
pmc: PMC9406849
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Dec 5;94(23):2136-43
pubmed: 23224384
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2018 May-Aug;26(3):2309499018802483
pubmed: 30295123
Clin Orthop Surg. 2020 Mar;12(1):1-8
pubmed: 32117532
Clin J Sport Med. 2002 Sep;12(5):273-8
pubmed: 12394198
J Ultrasound. 2012 Feb;15(1):69-75
pubmed: 23396989
Musculoskelet Surg. 2014 Aug;98(2):115-20
pubmed: 23716192
Foot Ankle Clin. 2005 Jun;10(2):331-56
pubmed: 15922923
Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2021 Jun 1;29(2):130-145
pubmed: 33972490
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2021 Sep 13;6(3):
pubmed: 34564194
Orthop J Sports Med. 2020 Mar 16;8(3):2325967120906522
pubmed: 32206673
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Mar;35(3):421-6
pubmed: 17158277
Musculoskelet Surg. 2016 Apr;100(1):53-61
pubmed: 25982090
BMJ. 2019 Jan 7;364:k5344
pubmed: 30617220
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2020 Dec 17;5(4):
pubmed: 33467310
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015 Feb;25(1):e133-8
pubmed: 24862178
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Apr;43(4):1008-16
pubmed: 24793572
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Feb 11;20(1):69
pubmed: 30744626
J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Dec;35(12):2529-2536
pubmed: 27738294
Clujul Med. 2013;86(2):128-32
pubmed: 26527933
Lasers Med Sci. 2014 May;29(3):1217-25
pubmed: 24352875
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Jul;24(7):2124-32
pubmed: 25539686
Injury. 2017 Jul;48(7):1710-1713
pubmed: 28465006
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Jul;37(7):1400-5
pubmed: 19329789
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2019 Mar 1;33(3):382-386
pubmed: 30874399
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Jun 8;21(1):358
pubmed: 32513228
World J Orthop. 2015 May 18;6(4):380-6
pubmed: 25992315
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Oct;49(20):1329-35
pubmed: 26281836
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015 Feb;25(1):e1-10
pubmed: 24650079
Foot Ankle Int. 1995 Nov;16(11):705-9
pubmed: 8589809
J Orthop Res. 2015 Jun;33(6):832-9
pubmed: 25641114
Joints. 2016 Jan 31;3(4):218-20
pubmed: 26904529
Am J Sports Med. 1994 Sep-Oct;22(5):607-10
pubmed: 7810783
Physiotherapy. 2012 Mar;98(1):24-32
pubmed: 22265382
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 Mar;137(3):333-340
pubmed: 28097423
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Feb;24(8):1-86
pubmed: 32068531
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Jun;24(6):1852-9
pubmed: 25051909
Foot Ankle Int. 2006 Nov;27(11):930-4
pubmed: 17144955
Injury. 2014 Nov;45(11):1782-90
pubmed: 25059505
ANZ J Surg. 2015 May;85(5):373-7
pubmed: 25366811
Foot Ankle Clin. 2009 Dec;14(4):699-709
pubmed: 19857843