4.3 Article

Muscular Morphomechanical Characteristics After an Achilles Repair

Journal

FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL
Volume 40, Issue 5, Pages 568-577

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1071100718822537

Keywords

fascicle tendon interaction; achilles tendon repair; rehabilitation outcome

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Council, Republic of China [NSC 105-2628-B-002 -053 -MY3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The purpose of the study was to compare the morphomechanical and functional characteristics during maximal isometric, concentric, and eccentric contractions in the legs of patients that underwent unilateral Achilles tendon repair with those in their noninjured control legs. Methods: Twenty participants (median age = 38.2 years; range, 21.1-57.3 years) who underwent Achilles repair between 3 and 12 months ago were recruited with the following measures: (1) mechanical stiffness of the aponeurosis and (2) electromyography and medial gastrocnemius fascicle angle and length, standing muscle and tendon length, and height of heel rise with isometric contraction. Results: Compared to the noninjured legs, the repaired legs showed less resting fascicle length, standing muscle length, isometric plantarflexion torque, and heel raise distance (Ps ranged between .044 and <.001). During the concentric and eccentric phases of the raising and lowering test, the repaired legs demonstrated less fascicle length (P <= .028) but greater tendinous tissue length (Ps ranged between .084 and <.001) and fascicle angle (Ps ranged between .247 and .008) and fewer change magnitudes of the fascicle length and tendinous tissue length (P <= .003). The change magnitudes of the morphological characteristics showed correlations with the torque or distance. Conclusion: Selecting the appropriate surgical repair and rehabilitation for Achilles tendon ruptures is recommended for restoring the length and mechanical strength of the muscle-tendon unit of plantar-flexion muscles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available