Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
E-pub ahead of print

Efficacy of early controlled motion of the ankle compared with immobilisation in non-operative treatment of patients with an acute Achilles tendon rupture: an assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Infographic. Therapeutic exercise relieves pain and does not harm knee cartilage nor trigger inflammation

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Knee osteoarthritis risk is increased 4-6 fold after knee injury - a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Isometric exercise for acute pain relief: is it relevant in tendinopathy management?

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: Early controlled motion (ECM) of the ankle is widely used in the non-operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture, although its safety and efficacy have not been investigated properly in a randomised set-up.

PURPOSE/AIM OF THE STUDY: To investigate if ECM of the ankle was superior to immobilisation in the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial with patients allocated in a 1:1 ratio to one of two parallel groups. Patients aged 18-70 years were eligible for inclusion. The ECM group performed movements of the ankle five times a day from week 3 to week 8 after rupture. The control group was immobilised for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS) evaluated at 1-year postinjury. The secondary outcomes were heel-rise work test (HRW), Achilles tendon elongation and rate of rerupture. Analysis was conducted as intention-to-treat using inverse probability weighting.

FINDINGS/RESULTS: 189 patients were assessed for eligibility and 130 were included from February 2014 to December 2016. There were 64 patients in the ECM group and 58 in the immobilisation group. There were no statistically significant differences (p>0.3) between the ECM and the immobilisation groups at 1 year: mean (SD) ATRS was 74 (18) and 75 (18), respectively. HRW was 60% (21) and 60% (21) of the uninjured limb, and elongation was 18 mm (13) and 16 mm (11), respectively. Correspondingly, there were six and seven reruptures.

CONCLUSIONS: ECM revealed no benefit compared with immobilisation in any of the investigated outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02015364.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
ISSN0306-3674
DOI
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 9 okt. 2019

Bibliografisk note

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

ID: 58139258