3.8 Review

Strength Measurement After Achilles Tendon Repair

期刊

FOOT & ANKLE SPECIALIST
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 471-479

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1938640018819779

关键词

Achilles tendon; rupture; strength; dynamometer; measurements; functional outcome; diagnostics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of treatment after Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) is to restore appropriate tension to the tendon, so that normal baseline strength and functional soft-tissue length can be achieved. The assessment of plantarflexion strength has shown widespread variability. The purpose of this study is to document variations in strength assessment after the treatment of ATR in the literature. A comprehensive literature review was performed. In total, 2758 articles were found on Achilles tendon rupture and Achilles tendon strength measurement. The full text of articles including strength as a functional outcome measurement in the abstract were assessed. All objective strength measurements performed were reviewed and recorded for comparison. One-hundred articles were included in our study. In 78 articles, a dynamometer was used to measure strength, whereas in 22 articles, an endurance test (n=14) or formal gait assessment (n=8) was applied. When a dynamometer was used, there was wide variability in the various methods used including the incorporation of both isokinetic (n = 65) and isometric (n = 29) exercises utilizing varying degrees of knee flexion and patient testing position. Furthermore, the number of measurements at certain angular velocities varied. This study illustrates that no general consensus exists regarding an optimal method for measuring strength after ATR. The variability creates difficulty and challenges medical professionals' ability to formulate consistent conclusions when determining functional performance outcomes. A more uniform way of measuring strength after ATR may allow for better comparisons between studies in the literature, potentially leading to a better understanding of strength.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据