Long Term Clinical–Functional and Ultrasound Outcomes in Recreational Athletes after Achilles Tendon Rupture: Ma and Griffith versus Tenolig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the long-term clinical–functional and ultrasound outcomes of recreational athletes treated with two percutaneous techniques: Ma and Griffith (M&G) and the Tenolig technique (TT). Materials and Methods: recreational athletes, between 18 and 50 years of age, affected by acute Achilles tendon rupture (AATR), treated by M&G or Tenolig techniques were recruited. Clinical–functional outcomes were evaluated using Achilles Tendon Rupture Score (ATRS), AOFAS Ankle–Hindfoot score, VAS (for pain and satisfaction) questionnaires, and ultrasound analysis (focal thickening, hypoechoic areas, presence of calcifications, tendinitis and alteration of normal fibrillar architecture). Results: 90 patients were included: 50 treated by M&G, 40 by TT. In all, 90% of patients resumed sports activities, with pre-injury levels in 56% of cases after M&G and in 60% after TT. In the M&G group, the averages of the questionnaires were ATRS 90.70 points, AOFAS 91.03, VAS satisfaction 7.08, and VAS pain 1.58. In the TT group: ATRS 90.38 points, AOFAS 90.28, VAS satisfaction 7.76, and VAS pain 1.34. The TT group showed a significantly higher satisfaction and return to sport activities within a shorter time. In the M&G group, ultrasound check showed a significantly greater incidence of thickening and an alteration of fibrillar architecture in the treated tendon. Three infections were reported, including one deep after M&G, two superficial in the TT group, and two re-ruptures in the Tenolig group following a further trauma. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, M&G and TT are both valid techniques for the treatment of AATRs in recreational athletes, achieving comparable clinical–functional results. However, TT seems to have a higher patient satisfaction rate, a faster return to sports and physical activities, and fewer ultrasound signs of tendinitis. Finally, the cost of the device makes this technique more expensive.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".