Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. 'More Walk and Less Talk': Changing gender bias in sports medicine

    Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearchpeer-review

  2. Association of high amounts of physical activity with mortality risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Strong and stringent hamstring strain science: trials and error!

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.


Original languageEnglish
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
Issue number12
Pages (from-to)719-724
Number of pages6
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2020

Bibliographical note

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

    Research areas

  • achilles tendon, rehabilitation, rupture, Rupture/physiopathology, Single-Blind Method, Achilles Tendon/injuries, Movement, Ankle/physiology, Humans, Middle Aged, Immobilization, Male, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Exercise Movement Techniques, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Aged, Patient Compliance

ID: 58139258