Fast functional rehabilitation protocol versus plaster cast immobilization protocol after achilles tendon tenorrhaphy: is it different? clinical, ultrasonographic, and elastographic comparison

Mostra el registre complet Registre parcial de l'ítem

• dc.contributor.author Mosconi, Mario
• dc.contributor.author Pasta, Gianluigi
• dc.contributor.author Annunziata, Salvatore
• dc.contributor.author Guerrieri, Viviana
• dc.contributor.author Ghiara, Matteo
• dc.contributor.author Perelli, Simone
• dc.contributor.author Torriani, Camilla
• dc.contributor.author Grassi, Federico Alberto
• dc.contributor.author Jannelli, Eugenio
• dc.date.accessioned 2023-02-02T07:22:36Z
• dc.date.available 2023-02-02T07:22:36Z
• dc.date.issued 2022
• dc.description.abstract Background: the incidence of Achilles tendon (AT) rupture is rising; however, there is no clear consensus regarding the optimal treatment. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare instrumental and patient-reported outcome scores after fast functional rehabilitation (group A) versus plaster cast immobilization (group B) programs in patients who underwent AT tenorrhaphy. Methods: 33 patients, with similar clinical and demographic features, underwent open AT tenorrhaphy between January and July 2018. Of these, 15 patients were treated with fast functional rehabilitation program (group A), and 18 patients were treated with plaster cast immobilization protocol (group B). Sural triceps hypotrophy and functional scores (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score, and Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS)) were recorded at a 12-month follow-up. Ultrasonography (US) and elastosonography (ES) were used to compare the characteristics of the tendons after surgery. Results: at 12 months, no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes or the instrumental measurement tests were seen between the two groups. Conclusions: fast functional rehabilitation after AT surgical repair is safe, effective, and may be the first choice of treatment, especially in young, collaborative, and active patients.
• dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
• dc.identifier.citation Mosconi M, Pasta G, Annunziata S, Guerrieri V, Ghiara M, Perelli S, et al. Fast functional rehabilitation protocol versus plaster cast immobilization protocol after achilles tendon tenorrhaphy: is it different? clinical, ultrasonographic, and elastographic comparison. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 Jul 29; 12(8): 1824. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12081824
• dc.identifier.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081824
• dc.identifier.issn 2075-4418
• dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10230/55591
• dc.language.iso eng
• dc.publisher MDPI
• dc.rights Copyright © 2022 by Mosconi M, Pasta G, Annunziata S, Guerrieri V, Ghiara M, Perelli S, et al. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
• dc.rights.accessRights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
• dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• dc.subject.keyword Achilles tendon
• dc.subject.keyword Early rehabilitation
• dc.subject.keyword Elastosonography
• dc.subject.keyword Rupture
• dc.subject.keyword Surgical repair
• dc.subject.keyword Ultrasonography
• dc.title Fast functional rehabilitation protocol versus plaster cast immobilization protocol after achilles tendon tenorrhaphy: is it different? clinical, ultrasonographic, and elastographic comparison
• dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
• dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion