ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of Achilles tendon healing following percutaneous repair with the Dresden instrument.
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous Achilles tendon (AT) repair with the Dresden instrument is a safe and effective treatment for AT rupture within 15 days after injury. Follow-up includes clinical examination and imaging to assess the healing process and detect possible complications. The findings of each control visit determine the progression of the rehabilitation of each patient.
methodsWe assessed the postoperative findings of all patients who underwent AT with the Dresden technique from May 2022 to September 2023, during a follow-up period of 6 months. The study population included 40 male patients between 18 and 59 years of age. Ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed in all patients at day 15 postoperatively and then monthly for 6 months.
resultsAll patients completed 6 months follow-up and 2 (5%) presented with postoperative wound dehiscence. No sural nerve lesions, reruptures, reoperations or other complications were seen. Both imaging methods showed excellent correlation of findings at all time points. Both methods were effective to assess the hematoma and structural changes of the healing process during the first 3 months. The use of US with Doppler was a useful tool to evaluate blood flow to the tendon stumps. After 3 months no significant morphological changes were observed but the US enabled a dynamic functional assessment of the tendon. After 4 months tissues showed homogenization and decrease of volume without further major changes.
conclusionBoth US and MRI proved to be excellent methods to assess the healing process after percutaneous AT repair. The US performed by an experienced investigator showed advantages over MRI in evaluating the gap between the tendon stumps, the possibility of evaluating the vascularity with Doppler US and assessing the functionality of the healing tendon with dynamic examination, besides being a cheap and easily accessible imaging method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39311962What 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.