ReviewEFORT open reviews2022
Rehabilitation following operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical comparison of innovative suture techniques for repair of Achilles tendon rupture in a porcine flexor tendon model.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Isolated Flexor Hallucis Longus Tendon Transfer for Chronic Achilles Tendon Rupture: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- The Effectiveness of the Modified Side-Locking Loop Suture Technique with Early Accelerated Rehabilitation for Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture in Athletes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Optimizing repair of tendon ruptures and chronic tendinopathies: Integrating the use of biomarkers with biological interventions to improve patient outcomes and clinical trial design.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare re-rupture rates, complication rates, functional outcomes, as well as return to work (RTW)/sport (RTS) among different rehabilitation protocols following operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two rehabilitation protocols following surgical repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Rehabilitation protocols were classified as a variation of either non-weightbearing (NWB) or weightbearing (WB) and immobilization (IM) or mobilization (M). The data collection consisted of re-ruptures, complications, and RTW/RTS. Results: Out of 2760 studies screened, 20 RCTs with 1007 patients were eligible. Fourteen studies included a group consisting of WB + M (Group 1), 11 of WB + IM (Group 2), 3 of NWB + M (Group 3), and 13 of NWB + IM (Group 4). Outcome parameters available for a meta-analysis were re-ruptures, complications, RTW, and RTS. Re-ruptures overall occurred in 2.7%, with prevalences ranging between 0.04 and 0.08. Major complications occurred in 2.6%, with prevalences ranging between 0.02 and 0.03. Minor complications occurred in 11.8% with prevalances ranging between 0.04 to 0.17. Comparing the odds-ratios between the four different groups revealed no significant differences with overall favourable results for group 1 (WB+M). Conclusion: Early functional rehabilitation protocols with early ankle M and WB following surgical repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures are safe and they apparently allow for a quicker RTW and RTS and seem to lead to favourable results.
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.