| Title |
Surgical treatment for midportion Achilles tendinopathy: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00167-016-4062-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. P. A. Baltes, R. Zwiers, J. I. Wiegerinck, C. N. van Dijk |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the available literature on surgical treatment for midportion Achilles tendinopathy and to provide an overview of the different surgical techniques. A systematic review of the literature available in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database of controlled trials was performed. The primary outcome measure in terms of patient satisfaction and the secondary outcome measures that consisted of complication rate, pain score, functional outcome score and success rate were evaluated. The Downs & Black checklist and the Coleman methodology scale were used to assess the methodological quality of included articles. Of 1090 reviewed articles, 23 met the inclusion criteria. The included studies reported on the results of 1285 procedures in 1177 patients. The surgical techniques were divided into five categories. Eleven studies evaluated open surgical debridement, seven studies described minimally invasive procedures, three studies evaluated endoscopic procedures, one study evaluated open gastrocnemius lengthening, and one study reported on open autologous tendon transfer. Results regarding patient satisfaction (69-100 %) and complication rate (0-85.7 %) varied widely. This study demonstrates the large variation in surgical techniques available for treatment of midportion Achilles tendinopathy. None of the included studies compared surgical intervention with nonsurgical or placebo intervention. Minimally invasive and endoscopic procedures yield lower complication rates with similar patient satisfaction in comparison with open procedures. Minimally invasive and endoscopic procedures might therefore prove to be the future of surgical treatment of Achilles midportion tendinopathy. IV. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 140 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 16% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 16% |
| Unknown | 35 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 1% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 43 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,703,870
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#158
of 2,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,852
of 300,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#7
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.