4.6 Article

Surgical treatment for chronic Achilles tendinopathy:: a prospective seven month follow up study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 178-182

Publisher

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.36.3.178

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To prospectively assess the early results of surgical treatment of chronic Achilles tendinopathy. Methods: This seven month prospective follow up study assessed the short term results of surgical treatment of chronic Achilles tendinopathy and compared the subjective and functional outcome of patients with Achilles tendinopathy without a local intratendinous lesion (group A) with that of similar patients with such a lesion (group B). Forty two of the initial 50 patients were examined before surgery and after the seven month follow up. Evaluation included an interview, subjective evaluation, clinical tests, and a performance test. Results: At the follow up, physical activity was fully restored in 28 of the 42 patients (67%), and 35 patients (83%) were asymptomatic or had only mild pain during strenuous exercise. In clinical tests, significant improvements were observed in climbing up and down stairs and the rising on the toes test. Surgical treatment also seemed to be successful from the total test score, which was excellent or good in 35 patients, compared with before surgery when it was excellent or good in one patient only. Patients in group A fared better than those in group B, whether evaluated by recovery of physical activity after surgery (88% v 54%) or the complication rate (6% v 27%). Conclusions: Surgical treatment of chronic Achilles tendinopathy gives good and acceptable short term results. A lower complication rate and a trend to better recovery was observed in patients with peritendinous adhesions only than in those with peritendinous adhesions combined with an intratendinous lesion.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available