Author:

Keywords:

Achilles tendon rupture, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, MOBILIZATION, nonoperative management, Orthopedics, rehabilitation, Science & Technology, Surgery, SURGERY, WEIGHT-BEARING, Achilles Tendon, Humans, Range of Motion, Articular, Rupture, Tendon Injuries, Treatment Outcome, Weight-Bearing, 1103 Clinical Sciences, 1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences, 3202 Clinical sciences, 4201 Allied health and rehabilitation science, 4207 Sports science and exercise

Abstract:

The optimal treatment and rehabilitation strategy for Achilles tendon ruptures is still under debate. There is a paradigm shift toward early mobilization and weightbearing. We examined the treatment effect of accelerated functional rehabilitation in nonoperative management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for articles comparing accelerated versus delayed rehabilitation in the nonoperative management of acute Achilles tendon rupture was performed. Outcomes of interest were Achilles tendon rupture score (ATRS) (standardized patient-reported instrument related to symptoms and physical activity after treatment of an acute Achilles tendon rupture), rerupture rate, strength, range of motion, return to work, and sports. A total of 2001 articles were identified using our search strategy. We included 6 randomized controlled trials of interest. Although the concept of accelerated rehabilitation has gained popularity in recent years, no statistically significant differences could be revealed in any of the outcomes of interest. We performed a meta-analysis on the following outcomes: ATRS (mean difference -0.93 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.01 to 4.14), Rerupture rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% CI: 0.46-2.03), Return to sports (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.76-2.25), Return to work (mean difference 5.24, 95% CI to -12.04 to 22.51). The treatment effect of accelerated rehabilitation in nonoperatively treated patients seems to be small. However, we recommend accelerated rehabilitation for all conservatively treated patients, because it is a safe option and no detrimental effects have been described in the literature. Furthermore, many patients prefer this type of rehabilitation to avoid the practical disadvantages of prolonged immobilization.