MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1970585959 · doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3350-7

Cochrane in CORR ®: Surgical Interventions for Treating Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures (Review)

2013· letter· en· W1970585959 sur OpenAlexaff
Raman Mundi, Kim Madden, Mohit Bhandari

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2013
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTendon Structure and Treatment
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAchilles tendonSports medicineSurgeryMEDLINETendonPhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Importance of the Topic In recent decades, the increasing interest in competitive and recreational sport participation among aging adults has been accompanied by a rise in sports-related injuries [2, 5]. Rupture of the Achilles tendon is one of the most common such injuries, typically afflicting men in their fourth and fifth decades of life [2, 4]. It is estimated that the incidence of these injuries is 18 per 100,000 in some regions, a considerable rise from the two per 100,000 estimates in the 1980 s [2-4]. Despite the rising incidence, as well as the lengthy disability and rehabilitation associated with Achilles tendon ruptures, the ideal method of managing such injuries remains a matter of debate [5]. As per the clinical practice guidelines approved by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, both surgical and nonsurgical treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures are acceptable options. However, the grade of recommendation remains weak for both treatment options, as there is a paucity of high-quality evidence and inconsistency in results to make strong recommendations either way [1]. Accordingly, a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of available high-quality evidence was warranted. Upon Closer Inspection Khan and Smith [3] performed a robust meta-analysis comparing several aspects in the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Rerupture rates, complication rates (infections, adhesions, nerve injury) and long-term function, appropriately formed the primary outcomes in this review for which definitive conclusions were sought. However, the capacity of a systematic review to draw unequivocal conclusions hinges directly on the quality of studies that comprise it. Among the 12 randomized controlled trials included in this review, only five (42%) had adequate allocation concealment, four (33%) did not report the method of randomization, and no studies reported the use of blinded outcome assessors. Additionally, there was considerable variation amongst the trials in their postsurgical and nonsurgical rehabilitation protocols. Pooled treatment effects are difficult to interpret in such circumstances, as outcomes are influenced by both the intervention and rehabilitation. Because of the limited number of studies, pooled estimates could not be calculated across all comparisons being investigated. A compelling analysis was that of open surgical repair to nonsurgical management, in which the pooled estimates demonstrated lower rerupture rates (5% versus 12%, risk ratio [RR], 0.41), but higher rates of infection (RR 4.89), adhesions (RR, 11.73), and nerve injury (RR, 7.44) associated with surgical repair. However, this analysis consisted of six small trials with a small number of events in each trial. Take-Home Message Open surgical repair for the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures appears favorable to nonsurgical management with respect to decreasing the risk of tendon rerupture, but has a higher risk of associated wound and nerve complications. Both surgical and nonsurgical management of such patients remain valid treatment options, as neither has proven superior in all patient important outcomes. However, additional trials that had been identified by the authors at the time of this review, but were not available for inclusion, have since been published. For instance, Willits et al. [6] performed a multicenter randomized trial of 144 patients that were randomized to either open surgical repair with accelerated rehabilitation or to accelerated rehabilitation alone. This trial found no significant difference in rerupture rates between the surgical and nonsurgical treatment arms at three months followup. These findings have been further corroborated by a recent meta-analysis of ten randomized trials comparing surgical intervention to nonsurgical treatment. A stratified analysis demonstrated no significant difference in rerupture rates if a functional rehabilitation protocol with early range of motion was instituted in the nonsurgical group (adjusted relative risk [ARR], 1.7%), whereas surgery significantly reduced rerupture when compare to prolonged immobilization (ARR, 8.8%) [5]. As such, the decision to proceed with surgical versus nonsurgical treatment in the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures remains a matter of ongoing debate. Given the available evidence, treatment decisions should largely be made based on the available rehabilitation protocol and the preferences of a well-informed patient [5].

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,600
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,134
Tête enseignante GPT0,513
Écart entre enseignants0,379 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchMême sujetTendon Structure and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207