MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020298044 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.00917

Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment of Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture

2012· review· en· W2020298044 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Sorocéanu, Feroze Sidhwa, Shahram Aarabi, Annette R. Kaufman, Mark Glazebrook

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health Authority
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineRange of motionAchilles tendon ruptureMeta-analysisSurgeryRelative riskPublication biasSubgroup analysisOdds ratioAchilles tendonStudy heterogeneityRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineTendonConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgical repair is a common method of treatment of acute Achilles rupture in North America because, despite a higher risk of overall complications, it has been believed to offer a reduced risk of rerupture. However, more recent trials, particularly those using functional bracing with early range of motion, have challenged this belief. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical treatment and conservative treatment with regard to the rerupture rate, the overall rate of other complications, return to work, calf circumference, and functional outcomes, as well as to examine the effects of early range of motion on the rerupture rate. METHODS: A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Publication bias was assessed with use of the Egger and Begg tests. Heterogeneity was assessed with use of the I2 test, and fixed or random-effect models were used accordingly. Pooled results were expressed as risk ratios, risk differences, and weighted or standardized mean differences, as appropriate. Meta-regression was employed to identify causes of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the effect of early range of motion. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. If functional rehabilitation with early range of motion was employed, rerupture rates were equal for surgical and nonsurgical patients (risk difference = 1.7%, p = 0.45). If such early range of motion was not employed, the absolute risk reduction achieved by surgery was 8.8% (p = 0.001 in favor of surgery). Surgery was associated with an absolute risk increase of 15.8% (p = 0.016 in favor of nonoperative management) for complications other than rerupture. Surgical patients returned to work 19.16 days sooner (p = 0.0014). There was no significant difference between the two treatments with regard to calf circumference (p = 0.357), strength (p = 0.806), or functional outcomes (p = 0.226). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis demonstrate that conservative treatment should be considered at centers using functional rehabilitation. This resulted in rerupture rates similar to those for surgical treatment while offering the advantage of a decrease in other complications. Surgical repair should be preferred at centers that do not employ early-range-of-motion protocols as it decreased the rerupture risk in such patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations466
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207