Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30464836›Full record

ArticleBone & joint research2018

Management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: A review.

X Yang, H Meng, Q Quan, J Peng, S Lu, A Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

X YangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Key Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Trauma & War Injuries PLA, Beijing Key Lab of Regenerative Medicine in Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
H MengDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Key Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Trauma & War Injuries PLA, Beijing Key Lab of Regenerative Medicine in Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Q QuanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Key Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Trauma & War Injuries PLA, Beijing Key Lab of Regenerative Medicine in Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
J PengDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Key Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Trauma & War Injuries PLA, Beijing Key Lab of Regenerative Medicine in Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
S LuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Key Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Trauma & War Injuries PLA, Beijing Key Lab of Regenerative Medicine in Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
A WangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Key Laboratory of Musculoskeletal Trauma & War Injuries PLA, Beijing Key Lab of Regenerative Medicine in Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chinese Academy of Engineering · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe incidence of acute Achilles tendon rupture appears to be increasing. The aim of this study was to summarize various therapies for acute Achilles tendon rupture and discuss their relative merits.

methodsA PubMed search about the management of acute Achilles tendon rupture was performed. The search was open for original manuscripts and review papers limited to publication from January 2006 to July 2017. A total of 489 papers were identified initially and finally 323 articles were suitable for this review.

resultsThe treatments of acute Achilles tendon rupture include operative and nonoperative treatments. Operative treatments mainly consist of open repair, percutaneous repair, mini-open repair, and augmentative repair. Traditional open repair has lower re-rupture rates with higher risks of complications. Percutaneous repair and mini-open repair show similar re-rupture rates but lower overall complication rates when compared with open repair. Percutaneous repair requires vigilance against nerve damage. Functional rehabilitation combining protected weight-bearing and early controlled motion can effectively reduce re-rupture rates with satisfactory outcomes. Biological adjuncts help accelerating tendon healing by adhering rupture ends or releasing highly complex pools of signalling factors.

conclusionThe optimum treatment for complete rupture remains controversial. Both mini-open repair and functional protocols are attractive alternatives, while biotherapy is a potential future development.

Indexed as

Acute Achilles tendon ruptureFunctional rehabilitationNonoperative management

Identifiers

PMID30464836
PMCPMC6215245
OpenAlexW2897931930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.