Chronic Achilles Tendon Rupture Reconstruction Using the Lindholm Method and the Vulpius Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the clinical and functional outcomes of chronic Achilles tendon rupture reconstruction via the Lindholm technique and via the Vulpius' lengthening of the gastrocnemius. METHODS: We evaluated 15 patients with chronic Achilles tendon rupture (Lindholm technique in eight patients and primary repair with the Vulpius technique in seven patients). In the final follow-up, the Hooker scale was used to measure the ankle functional capacity in all patients. The patients were evaluated on the basis of their capability to stand on tiptoe on the affected limb and the time required to return to pre-injury daily activities. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 19.6 months (range, 12 - 38 months). The mean time to return to work and daily activity was 3.2 months. The mean calf atrophy at the end of follow-up was 1.2 cm (range, 0 - 2.5 cm). At the last follow-up visit, no patient had any limitation in the activities of daily living and the active and passive ankle range of motion was good. All patients were able to perform single-leg heel rises at the end of follow-up and the Hooker scores were excellent for 11 patients and satisfactory for four patients. CONCLUSION: The reconstruction of chronic Achilles tendon ruptures via the Lindholm technique or via the Vulpius technique is associated with good clinical and functional outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".