ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Comparison of clinical outcomes between ligament augmentation reconstruction system and conventional repair for acute Achilles tendon rupture: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parsing Through the Data on Achilles Tendon Rupture Management, Rehab and Sports Return Criteria: a Current Literature Review.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Reconstruction of the Achilles tendon using LARS artificial ligament in bilateral xanthoma: a case report and literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundAchilles tendon rupture (ATR) often limits early rehabilitation following conventional repair. The ligament augmentation reconstruction system (LARS) offers immediate mechanical stability and enables early mobilization. However, few studies have directly compared LARS with conventional suture techniques in ATR. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the LARS versus the conventional Kessler suture technique for managing acute closed ATR. STUDY
designRetrospective Cohort Study.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 91 patients who underwent surgical repair for ATR. The cohort was divided into two groups: 59 patients were treated with the LARS and 32 with the conventional Kessler suture technique. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS) and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Complications and re-rupture rates were systematically documented and compared between the groups.
resultsAt the 3-month follow-up, the LARS group demonstrated significantly superior functional outcomes, with markedly higher ATRS (78.00 ± 15.01 vs. 55.00 ± 16.30, P < 0.001) and AOFAS scores (87.03 ± 5.44 vs. 82.03 ± 3.92, P < 0.001) compared to the conventional repair group. This superiority was maintained at the 6-month assessment for both the ATRS (88.00 ± 12.18 vs. 76.00 ± 13.23; P < 0.001) and AOFAS scores (94.78 ± 4.90 vs. 89.06 ± 4.54; P < 0.001). However, by 12 months postoperatively, the differences in both ATRS and AOFAS scores between the two groups were no longer statistically significant (P > 0.05). The LARS group reported one case of gastrocnemius weakness, while the conventional group experienced two cases of delayed wound healing and one superficial infection.
conclusionLARS repair enables a faster functional recovery in the short term compared to conventional Kessler repair, without increasing complication rates. While both techniques yield comparable excellent results by one year, the accelerated recovery pathway provided by LARS establishes it as a safe and effective treatment option, especially valuable for patients requiring an early return to activity.
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.