MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414287495 · doi:10.3390/medicina61091684

Revision Surgery for Achilles Tendon Rupture: A Comprehensive Review of Treatment Options, Outcomes, and Complications and the Role of Artificial Intelligence

2025· review· en· W4414287495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elena Delmastro, Stefano Colace, Umile Giuseppe Longo, Pieter D’Hooghe, Alberto Marangon, Olimpio Galasso, Giorgio Gasparini, Michele Mercurio

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchilles tendonComplicationTendonAchilles tendon ruptureQuality of life (healthcare)Rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Achilles tendon ruptures in middle-aged individuals with systemic comorbidities represent a growing clinical challenge. Revision surgery, indicated in cases of tendon re-rupture, remains technically demanding and lacks standardized treatment protocols. This comprehensive review aimed to summarize current evidence regarding indications, outcomes, and complications associated with the most commonly employed revision techniques and explores the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in improving management and outcomes. Materials and Methods: A literature review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central databases were used to search keywords. We included articles (1) reporting indications, outcomes, and/or complications of revision surgery for Achilles tendon rupture; (2) reporting a minimum mean follow-up of >12 months; and (3) written in English. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 3250 patients analyzed. A methodological quality assessment using the Modified Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was performed, and all articles were found to be of high quality. Results: Surgical strategies were stratified based on defect size: <2 cm: end-to-end anastomosis; 2–5 cm: V-Y myotendinous lengthening, often combined with tendon transfer; and >5 cm: fascial turndown flaps, autografts (e.g., semitendinosus), or allografts. Tendon transfers showed satisfactory functional outcomes but varied in complication rates. Allografts offered reduced donor site morbidity. The use of AI and wearable sensors has demonstrated potential in preoperative planning, complication prediction, and real-time rehabilitation monitoring. Conclusions: Achilles tendon revision surgery requires a patient-specific, defect-oriented approach. Combined surgical techniques are often necessary for large or non-viable lesions. The integration of AI represents a promising advancement in enhancing surgical decision-making, optimizing rehabilitation, and improving long-term clinical 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207