Surgical Versus Conservative Intervention for Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-Analyses

Hao Zhang, Hao Tang, Qianyun He, Qiang Wei, Dake Tong, Chuangfeng Wang, Dajiang Wu, Guangchao Wang, Xin Zhang, Wenbin Ding, Di Li, Chen Ding, Kang Liu, Fang Ji, Hao Zhang, Hao Tang, Qianyun He, Qiang Wei, Dake Tong, Chuangfeng Wang, Dajiang Wu, Guangchao Wang, Xin Zhang, Wenbin Ding, Di Li, Chen Ding, Kang Liu, Fang Ji

Abstract

Although many meta-analyses comparing surgical intervention with conservative treatment have been conducted for acute Achilles tendon rupture, discordant conclusions are shown. This study systematically reviewed the overlapping meta-analyses relating to surgical versus conservative intervention of acute Achilles tendon rupture to assist decision makers select among conflicting meta-analyses, and to offer intervention recommendations based on the currently best evidence.Multiple databases were comprehensively searched for meta-analyses comparing surgical with conservative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture. Meta-analyses only comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two authors independently evaluated the meta-analysis quality and extracted data. The Jadad decision algorithm was applied to ascertain which meta-analysis offered the best evidence.A total of 9 meta-analyses were included. Only RCTs were determined as Level-II evidence. The scores of Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) ranged from 5 to 10 (median 7). A high-quality meta-analysis with more RCTs was selected according to the Jadad decision algorithm. This study found that when functional rehabilitation was used, conservative intervention was equal to surgical treatment regarding the incidence of rerupture, range of motion, calf circumference, and functional outcomes, while reducing the incidence of other complications. Where functional rehabilitation was not performed, conservative intervention could significantly increase rerupture rate.Conservative intervention may be preferred for acute Achilles tendon rupture at centers offering functional rehabilitation, because it shows a similar rerupture rate with a lower risk of other complications when compared with surgical treatment. However, surgical treatment should be considered at centers without functional rehabilitation as this can reduce the incidence of rerupture.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The flowchart of study selection.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Results of the included meta-analyses.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
The flowchart of Jadad decision algorithm.

References

    1. Gwynne-Jones DP, Sims M, Handcock D. Epidemiology and outcomes of acute Achilles tendon rupture with operative or nonoperative treatment using an identical functional bracing protocol. Foot Ankle Int 2011; 32:337–343.
    1. Leppilahti J, Puranen J, Orava S. Incidence of Achilles tendon rupture. Acta Orthop Scand 1996; 67:277–279.
    1. Longo UG, Petrillo S, Maffulli N, et al. Acute achilles tendon rupture in athletes. Foot Ankle Clin 2013; 18:319–338.
    1. Weatherall JM, Mroczek K, Tejwani N. Acute achilles tendon ruptures. Orthopedics 2010; 33:758–764.
    1. Coombs R. Prospective trial of conservative and surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. J Bone Joint Sur Br 1981; 63B:288.
    1. Nistor L. Surgical and non-surgical treatment of Achilles Tendon rupture. A prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63:394–399.
    1. Cetti R, Christensen SE, Ejsted R, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. A prospective randomized study and review of the literature. Am J Sports Med 1993; 21:791–799.
    1. Thermann H, Zwipp H, Tscherne H. Functional treatment concept of acute rupture of the Achilles tendon. 2 years results of a prospective randomized study. Unfallchirurg 1995; 98:21–32.
    1. Schroeder D, Lehmann M, Steinbrueck K. Treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: open vs. percutaneous repair vs. conservative treatment. A prospective randomized study. Orthop Trans 1997; 21:1228.
    1. Majewski M, Rickert M, Steinbruck K. Achilles tendon rupture. A prospective study assessing various treatment possibilities. Orthopade 2000; 29:670–676.
    1. Moller M, Movin T, Granhed H, et al. Acute rupture of tendon Achillis. A prospective randomised study of comparison between surgical and non-surgical treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83:843–848.
    1. Costa ML, MacMillan K, Halliday D, et al. Randomised controlled trials of immediate weight-bearing mobilisation for rupture of the tendo Achillis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88:69–77.
    1. Twaddle BC, Poon P. Early motion for Achilles tendon ruptures: is surgery important? A randomized, prospective study. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35:2033–2038.
    1. Metz R, Verleisdonk EJ, van der Heijden GJ, et al. Acute Achilles tendon rupture: minimally invasive surgery versus nonoperative treatment with immediate full weightbearing—a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36:1688–1694.
    1. Nilsson-Helander K, Silbernagel KG, Thomee R, et al. Acute achilles tendon rupture: a randomized, controlled study comparing surgical and nonsurgical treatments using validated outcome measures. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38:2186–2193.
    1. Willits K, Amendola A, Bryant D, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a multicenter randomized trial using accelerated functional rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92:2767–2775.
    1. Keating JF, Will EM. Operative versus non-operative treatment of acute rupture of tendo Achillis: a prospective randomised evaluation of functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93:1071–1078.
    1. Wilkins R, Bisson LJ. Operative versus nonoperative management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40:2154–2160.
    1. Jiang N, Wang B, Chen A, et al. Operative versus nonoperative treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis based on current evidence. Int Orthop 2012; 36:765–773.
    1. Zhao HM, Yu GR, Yang YF, et al. Outcomes and complications of operative versus non-operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011; 124:4050–4055.
    1. van der Eng DM, Schepers T, Goslings JC, et al. Rerupture rate after early weightbearing in operative versus conservative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures: a meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg 2013; 52:622–628.
    1. Jones MP, Khan RJ, Carey Smith RL. Surgical interventions for treating acute achilles tendon rupture: key findings from a recent cochrane review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94:e88.
    1. Khan RJ, Carey Smith RL. Surgical interventions for treating acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; CD003674.
    1. Soroceanu A, Sidhwa F, Aarabi S, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94:2136–2143.
    1. Khan RJ, Fick D, Keogh A, et al. Treatment of acute achilles tendon ruptures. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87:2202–2210.
    1. Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Siddiqui F, et al. Treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: a systematic overview and metaanalysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; 400:190–200.
    1. Mascarenhas R, Cvetanovich GL, Sayegh ET, et al. Does Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Improve Postoperative Knee Stability Compared With Single-Bundle Techniques? A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses. Arthroscopy 2015; 31:1185–1196.
    1. Zhao JG, Wang J, Wang C, et al. Intramedullary nail versus plate fixation for humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94:e599.
    1. Mascarenhas R, Chalmers PN, Sayegh ET, et al. Is double-row rotator cuff repair clinically superior to single-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy 2014; 30:1156–1165.
    1. Zhao JG, Wang J, Long L. Surgical Versus Conservative Treatments for Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-Analyses. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94:e1057.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e1000100.
    1. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A:1–3.
    1. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7:10.
    1. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62:1013–1020.
    1. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2007; 2:e1350.
    1. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ 1997; 156:1411–1416.
    1. Young D. Policymakers, experts review evidence-based medicine. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2005; 62:342–343.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera