ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021
Biomechanical Comparison of Panda Rope Bridge Technique and Other Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair Techniques In Vitro.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of early versus late functional weight-bearing after the acute Achilles tendon rupture repair with minimally invasive surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Trial
- Open and Percutaneous Approaches Have Similar Biomechanical Results for Primary Midsubstance Achilles Tendon Repair: A Meta-analysis.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Dynamic Tensile Stress Promotes Regeneration of Achilles Tendon in a Panda Rope Bridge Technique Mice Model.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough nonoperative management of acute Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) is a reasonable option, surgical repair has attracted attention for young and active patients. More reliable Achilles tendon repair techniques are needed to enhance recovery after ATR in this population. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To biomechanically analyze the panda rope bridge technique (PRBT) and compare it with other minimally invasive repair techniques over a simulated, progressive rehabilitation program. It was hypothesized that PRBT would result in better biomechanical properties and enhanced recovery after ATR. STUDY
designControlled laboratory study.
methodsAn Achilles tendon rupture was created 4 cm from the distal tendon insertion site in 40 bovine lower extremities, and specimens were then randomly allocated to 5 Achilles tendon repair techniques: (1) Achillon, (2) modified Achillon, (3) Percutaneous Achilles Repair System (PARS), (4) modified PARS, and (5) PRBT. Each group was subjected to a cyclic loading protocol that was representative of progressive postoperative rehabilitation for ATR (250 cycles at 1 Hz for each loading stage: 20-100 N, 20-200 N, 20-300 N, and 20-400 N).
resultsThe PRBT technique demonstrated significantly less elongation (1.62 ± 0.25 mm) than the 4 other repair techniques after the first loading stage of 20 to 100 N (
conclusionIn this bovine model, PRBT biomechanically outperformed the other minimally invasive Achilles tendon repair techniques that were tested and could therefore meet the requirements of accelerated rehabilitation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The reduced tendency for premature rerupture and the overall improved biomechanical properties of PRBT suggest that ATR patients treated with PRBT may more readily complete early and aggressive postoperative rehabilitation protocols. In addition, they may have a lower risk of early irreversible suture failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.