Non-operative treatment of tendo-achilles rupture: is “gap size” important in determining suitability for functional rehabilitation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The treatment of acute rupture of the tendo-achilles remains controversial. There is good evidence to suggest that outcomes are the same for both operative and non-operative treatment when a functional rehabilitation program is utilised. However, debate continues as to whether the radiological gap-size between the proximal and distal remnants of the tendon has an influence on the suitability for non-operative management. Methods: All adult patients who attended the emergency department with a clinically suspected tendo-achilles rupture were place in a plantarflexed cast, and underwent MRI scanning to confirm the diagnosis. They were then counselled on the risks and benefits of operative versus non-operative treatment. Patients opting for non-operative treatment were asked to take part in the study and treated using a functional rehabilitation programme. Gap sizes were determined using a standardised protocol by a single musculoskeletal radiologist blinded to the clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 69 patients have been recruited into the study, 40 have complete their one year review. There were two re-ruptures. The average age was 42.4 years (range 19–70). The average gap size recorded by MRI was 40.4mm (range 6–110). The average ATRS score was 80 (range 17–100) and the single limb heel raise percentage of contralateral side was 64.8% (range 4–115). The Spearman rank correlation coefficient comparing gap size and ATRS score was 0.272 (p=0.045) and for gap size and strength was 0.158 (p=0.165). Conclusion: This study shows a weak positive correlation between MRI measured gap size of the ruptured tendo-achilles and the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score at one year. No correlation could be demonstrated between gap size and strength at one year. These results suggest that the MRI measured gap size is unimportant in predicting outcome and hence suitability for non-operative treatment of tendo-achilles rupture using functional rehabilitation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".