MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406593221 · doi:10.1186/s12891-025-08286-8

Outcomes of operative and nonoperative management of myotendinous Achilles tendon ruptures: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4406593221 on OpenAlexaff
Darius L. Lameire, Luca Ramelli, Mansur Halai, David Wasserstein, Sam Si‐Hyeong Park

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's UniversityWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAchilles tendonAchilles tendon ruptureSurgeryHeelSports medicineTendonTendinopathySystematic reviewRehabilitationMEDLINEOrthopedic surgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Achilles tendon ruptures are the most common lower extremity tendinous rupture. While there has been extensive research into the management of mid-substance Achilles tendon ruptures, there is a paucity of literature on the management of myotendinous Achilles tendon ruptures. METHODS: The aim of this systematic review is to compile all available literature on the treatment of myotendinous Achilles tendon tears. A systematic search of Web of Science, Embase, and Medline databases was performed for all studies published from database inception to April 13, 2024. All publications addressing the treatment of myotendinous Achilles ruptures of all levels of evidence were included. The PRISMA Checklist guided the reporting and data abstraction. Descriptive statistics are presented. RESULTS: A total of five studies with 70 patients were included for analysis. Sixty-seven patients underwent non-operative management with an average age ranging from 40.8 to 51.0 years. Three patients underwent operative management with ages of 16, 36, and 39. The majority of patients tore their Achilles tendon during sports. For nonoperatively treated patients, one group underwent immobilization for a total of 6 weeks and one study treated patients with functional rehabilitation. All patients were able to perform a single heel-raise, had good reported strength, and returned to work or sport. Nonoperative patients reported statistically significant improvements in subjective outcomes and high rates of satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Both nonoperative and operative management of myotendinous Achilles tendon ruptures demonstrated good outcomes after injury, although there is a limited amount of literature on this topic. Given that nonoperative treatment appears to yield good strength and return to activity, it may be preferred for the majority of patients. Operative management may be indicated in high level athletes. Imaging to determine the exact location of injury, quality of remaining tendon, and gap distance may further aid when considering treatment options. Higher level evidence studies are required to determine the optimal treatment of myotendinous Achilles tendon ruptures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; Systematic review of Level IV-V studies.

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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207