ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Surgical repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture with and without human amniotic membrane augmentation: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Achilles tendon ruptures are common, particularly in active individuals; however, optimal healing remains challenging due to limited vascularity, adhesions, and re-rupture risk. Human amniotic membrane (hAM), rich in extracellular matrix and bioactive factors, shows regenerative potential, offering a promising adjunct for tendon repair. Methods: After institutional review board approval, patients aged 20-75 years who underwent end-to-end Achilles tendon repair for acute complete rupture between February 2019 and January 2025 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped by intraoperative use of hAM allografts. Baseline characteristics, rupture location, operative time, complications (tendon re-rupture, wound infection, dehiscence), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot score, and follow-up duration were analyzed using Results: In total, 45 repairs were performed in 44 patients. Of these, 13 patients (13 feet) received hAM augmentation, while 31 patients (32 feet) underwent primary repair without hAM. The overall mean follow-up time for the entire cohort was 38.16 ± 21.13 months. Complications occurred in 11 of the 45 feet, including 1 wound dehiscence, 3 re-rupture (2 of which were associated with wound infection), and 7 additional cases of wound infection. Operative time was significantly shorter in the hAM group (94.00 ± 30.12 vs. 116.72 ± 24.46 min, Conclusions: The hAM augmentation reduced operative time without affecting complication rates or functional outcomes. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm its clinical benefits.Level of evidence: IV.
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.