MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406575994 · doi:10.7759/cureus.77614

Long-Term Outcomes Following Surgical Intervention for Achilles Tendon Rupture: A Systematic Review With a Minimum Five-Year Follow-Up

2025· review· en· W4406575994 on OpenAlexaff
Conor Kilkenny, Gordon Daly, Shane Irwin, Lama M Alghawas, Niall P. McGoldrick, John F. Quinlan

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAchilles tendon ruptureDeep veinSurgerySystematic reviewMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryMEDLINEThrombosisAchilles tendonRandomized controlled trialTendon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achilles tendon (TA) rupture is a common injury. However, there is limited evidence on the long-term outcomes following surgical repair. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and complications associated with surgical management of TA rupture with a minimum five-year follow-up duration. A literature search of Medline OVID, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The outcomes measured focused on postoperative complications, rates of re-rupture, contralateral rupture, and revision surgery. Six studies including 806 patients were included. Surgical repair demonstrated low re-rupture rates (4.2%) and revision rates (3.7%) at five years follow-up. Contralateral ruptures were uncommon (N=5), and 30 patients required revision surgery. However, complications such as deep vein thrombosis (6.3%) and wound infections (3.6%) were observed. Surgical repair of TA rupture demonstrates excellent long-term outcomes, including low rates of re-rupture and revision over a minimum of five years. While complications such as deep vein thrombosis and wound infections are observed, this systematic review highlights the reliability, durability, and overall success of surgical intervention in effectively treating this condition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207