Non-operative treatment of acute achilles tendon rupture
A review of current best practice for treating this common sports injury, by Prasad Rao, Mehek Asad and Asad Syed
Anatomy, function, aetiology and risk factors for rupture
The Achilles tendon is relatively hypovascular, especially at its distal third [1,2]; in contrast, the paratenon is a highly vascular structure [3]. The Achilles tendon is part of a musculotendinous unit that spans three joints, producing knee flexion, tibiotalar flexion and subtalar inversion. Loads as great as 12.5 times body weight are placed on the tendon during running, cont-ributing to its high rate of injury [4,5]. Male individuals have a higher maximum tendon rupture force and stiffness, in part due to a larger cross-sectional area, than female individuals. Younger individuals have a higher maximum tendon rupture force and lower stiffness than their older counterparts [6].
Rupture of the Achilles tendon is one of the most common tendon injuries in the adult population. The incidence of this injury is on the rise as aging adults continue their participation in high-demand sports activities. Host anatomy and external risk factors, including high-intensity plyometric exercises, training on unfamiliar surfaces and the use of improper footwear are some of the causes for the injury [6]. The commonest mechanism of injury remains rapid eccentric contraction of the calf muscles during sports and exertional activities brought on by sudden dorsiflexion of the ankle in a previously compromised tendon [7–10]. Treatment of the injury has been complicated with the increasing demands and patient expectation. There are numerous research papers published in favour of operative and non-operative treatment – the verdict, however, remains non-conclusive [11–16].
Treatment of an acute rupture
The optimal treatment remains controversial, and both operative and non-operative treatments have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The complications related to wound and scar problems seem to favour non-operative management, and reduced chances of re-rupture the surgical option. Non-operative treatment has gained increasing popularity during the past decade.
A number of meta-analyses comparing operative and non-operative treatment have shown a significantly lower rate of re-rupture and a higher rate of other complications among operatively treated patients [21–23]. Early management of Achilles tendon ruptures were strict immobilisation, which was initially described by Lea and Smith; and strict immobilisation for eight weeks, followed by the use of a heel lift (with concurrent institution of strengthening exercises). This was associated with an 11 per cent re-rupture rate at 26 months of follow-up [23]. The main issues with strict immobilisation, especially in the elderly and less-active individuals, were stiff-ness and significant loss of power, strength and endurance [23].
Early mobilisation has been discussed since the1980s and has been shown to improve tendon healing in both in vivo and in vitro studies [18,19,24,25,30]. Early mobilisation minimises the chances of healing in the lengthened position of rupture [25,29–31]. Functional bracing has gained popularity recently, with several reviews favourably comparing functional bracing with surgical repair [20,21,24]. This concept was later adopted for non-operative management of Achilles tendon ruptures. The dynamic rehabilitation after non-operative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture has been shown to result in better functional outcomes, and the rates of re-rupture are comparable with that of surgical treatment [18–24].
Functional stimulus to healing, and early weight-bearing with protected range of movement, achieve favourable outcomes in terms of range of motion, and return to activities and strength [24–28]. An examination by Soroceanu et al., involving only studies using dynamic rehabilitation, revealed no significant difference in the rate of re-rupture between operatively and non-operatively treated patients; the increased risk of other complications in the operative group was the only significant difference [21].
In a multi-centre randomised trial of 144 patients, Willits and co-workers assessed accelerated functional rehabilitation in operative vs non-operative cases with acute Achilles tendon ruptures. They followed up their cases at six, 12 and 24 months after injury and found there was no clinically important difference between groups with regard to strength, range of motion, calf circumference or Leppilahti score. There were 13 complications in the operative group and six in the non-operative group, with the main difference being the greater number of soft-tissue-related complications in the operative group [22]. They concluded that accelerated functional rehabilitation in the non-operative group had results comparable with the operated group. The operated group had an overall increased risk of surgical complications [22].
Costa et al. considered return to normal activities as the most important outcome parameter. They found that immediate weight-bearing led to quicker return to normal walking and stair-climbing in operatively but not non-operatively treated patients [29]. The role of weight-bearing is of fundamental importance as it influences not only the quality of treatment but also the patient’s self-care ability. Use of an orthotic heel lift reduces the force on the Achilles tendon and the resulting strain while still allowing for isometric contractions [32]. Suchak et al. considered quality of life as the most important outcome parameter. They found that early weight-bearing led to better health-related quality of life outcomes during treatment [31].
In their blind, randomised, controlled trial, Barford and colleagues compared weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing in conservatively treated achilles tendon injuries using the fixed orthosis, and showed that immediate weight-bearing can be recommended as an option in the non-operative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture [32]. They also showed that the Achilles tendon rupture score (ATRS) was 73 in the weight-bearing group and 74 in the non-weight-bearing group, which was not statistically significant. There was no difference in either of the groups at 12 months for total heel-rise work performed by the affected limb as compared with the uninjured limb. There were three cases of re-rupture in the affected group, and two in the control group, which again was not statistically significant [32].
Following the success of early weight-bearing in non-operative management of Achilles tendon ruptures, the general trend in Scandinavia is changing.
Matilla and co-workers used the Finnish registry of Achilles tendon ruptures over 15 years to study a total of 15,252 patients, and reported that there was a declining trend of surgical treatment. This trend was based around the fact that the clinicians had changed their practice from surgical to non-surgical after becoming convinced by the evidence from high-quality randomised controlled trials [33].
A Danish study by Ganestam and others retrospectively looked at the National Patient Registry from 1994 to 2013. The incidence of acute Achilles tendon rupture increased over that period, based on increasing incidence in the older population. The researchers found a steady decline in surgical treatment over the whole period, with a noticeable decline from 2009 to 2013, possibly reflecting a rapid change in clinical practice following a range of high-quality randomised clinical trials [34].
The orthopaedic fraternity in the rest of the world seems to either favour surgery over conservative management or remain inconclusive on the best treatment option. Despite the trend and the evidence, orthopaedic surgeons here in the UK are still divided as to the best form of treatment protocol. In 2015, Kearney et al. looked at an online survey of British Foot and Ankle Society members, where 181 members completed the form. A wide variation in practice was noticed even between these specialist foot and ankle surgeons: 13 per cent managed these ruptures with plaster cast alone; 68 per cent followed plaster with orthosis; while 19 per cent managed it with orthosis alone. There was significant variation among the respondents about the duration, foot position and weight-bearing status [35].
In 2013, Osarumwense and colleagues conducted a survey of 221 orthopaedic consultants working in 28 hospitals within the greater London area. Of the 86 respondents, 62 of them treated acute ruptures using conservative and surgical means; of those, 51 used below-knee plasters while five respondents still used an above-knee plaster. Only six used functional bracing. The most common immobilisation regimen was to keep the foot in a sequence of equinus, semi-equinus and neutral positions of foot, for three weeks each. After plaster removal, a heel raise was used for a duration of four weeks. Among the foot and ankle specialists surveyed, the median range of immobilisation was eight weeks – one week less than the generalist. Mean time to weight-bearing was six weeks [36].
Interestingly, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline 2010 on the treatment of an Achilles tendon rupture remains inconclusive. They were unable to reach consensus on most things, and only agreed on two things: first, detailed history and examination should be performed in patients with suspected Achilles tendon rupture and, secondly, that the operative treatment should be approached more cautiously in patients over the age of 65 years or with concomitant medical problems. They do not favour conservative over surgical treatment [37].
In the latest review article from the USA, Uquillas et al. (2015) suggest that optimal treatment remains controversial. They recommend surgery if the gap between the two ends of the tendon is greater than 3cm. Non-surgical treatment remains non-weight-bearing immobilisation in a plaster cast in an equinus position. Functional bracing could be initiated at the two-week stage and has shown increased range of movement and an earlier return to pre-injury activity levels and comfort in the long term [38].
In 2004 and 2005, an Australian research team led by Khan undertook a Cochrane review of literature and concluded that open operative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture significantly reduced the risk of re-rupture compared with non-operative treatment, but that such treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk of other complications [39,40]. They published their results again in 2012, with a Cochrane review from Jones et al. that supported operative repair over non-surgical treatment [41].
Figure 1: Matles test. Patient lies prone with knees flexed to 90 degrees. Normal test shows ankle in slight plantar flexion. Dorsiflexion of the ankle indicates ruptured Achilles tendon at that side.
Figure 2: Thomson (Simmonds) test. Squeezing the calf on a relaxed prone patient brings about no response in a ruptured Achilles tendon.
Figure 3: Krakow’s stitch used to repair the debrided ends of a neglected Achilles tendon repair, using V-Y plasty to gain length.
Treatment of a chronic rupture
The term chronic rupture varies from four weeks to 2.5 months as described in the literature [42]. There is very little evidence to show that non-surgical management improves the symptoms associated with chronic ruptures. Surgical repair with augmentation remains the gold standard [43–45]. Options for surgical treatment of chronic tears include direct repair, local tissue transfer, soft-tissue augmentation and augmentation with synthetic allografts.
Direct repair may be achieved for gaps that are less than 3cm in length after debridement. In cases of delayed or late presentations this is possibly an option to explore. But in cases where the tendon is significantly shortened, contracted and dysfunctional, the flexor hallucis longus (FHL) tendon is commonly used to augment the direct repair; it also provides good vascularity and strength to the tendon ends. Augmentation with soft tissue can be done using medial and lateral aponeurotic fascial turndown flaps, plantaris tendon, sliding V-Y advancement of the gastrocnemius-soleus complex aponeurosis, and fascia lata [46–48]. Achilles tendon allografts have been used to treat large defects (approximately 10 cm); however, results are limited only to case reports. In our unit, V-Y advancement remains our favoured technique for defects up to 5–7 cm.
Current thinking and conclusion
While there is no consensus about the treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture, the practices remain different in different parts of the world. It would appear that the Americans and the Australians still favour surgical intervention while the Europeans are moving away from surgery and are more in line with the Scandinavian practice of conservative treatment with functional bracing and early weight-bearing as the first choice in most cases. The role of an active and constructive supervised physiotherapy regimen at the earliest opportunity favours successful outcomes.
There is now more evidence to recommend that most cases of acute Achilles tendon rupture should be treated conservatively unless dynamic ultrasound fails to show a reasonable closure of the gap or that there are risk factors against it. Weight-bearing and early use of functional orthosis could be initiated early, as it has shown to be equally safe – with the advantages of an early return to work and sports, and reduced complications. Accelerated rehabilitation regimes and biochemical manipulation of the injury site are the areas that may improve results further.
References
1. Chen TM, Rozen WM, Pan WR, et al. The arterial anatomy of the Achilles tendon: anatomical study and clinical implications. Clin Anat. 2009 Apr;22(3):377–385
2. Benjamin M, McGonagle D. The anatomical basis for disease localisation in seronegative spondyloarthropathy at entheses and related sites. J Anat. 2001 Nov;199(Pt 5):503–526
3. Lohrer H, Arentz S, Nauck T, et al. The Achilles tendon insertion is crescent-shaped: an in vitro anatomic investigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Sep;466(9):2230–2237
4. Stilwell DL Jr. The innervation of tendons and aponeuroses. Am J Anat. 1957 May;100(3):289–317
5. Benjamin M, Toumi H, Ralphs JR, et al. Where tendons and ligaments meet bone: attachment sites (‘entheses’) in relation to exercise and/or mechanical load. J Anat. 2006 Apr;208(4):471–490
6. Maffulli N, Longo UG, Ronga M, et al. Favorable outcome of percutaneous repair of Achilles tendon ruptures in the elderly. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2010 Apr;468(4):1039–1046
7. Moller A, Astron M, Westlin N. Increasing incidence of Achilles tendon rupture Acta Orthop Scand. 1996;67:479–481
8. Józsa L, Kvist M, Bálint BJ, et al. The role of recreational sport activity in Achilles tendon rupture. A clinical, pathoanatomical, and sociological study of 292 cases. Am J Sports Med. 1989;17:338–343
9. Leppilahti J, Puranen J, Orava S. Incidence of Achilles tendon rupture. Acta Orthop Scand 1996;67:277–279
10. Cetti R, Henriksen LO, Jacobsen KS. A new treatment of ruptured Achilles tendons. A prospective randomized study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;308:155–165
11. Coombs RH. Prospective trial of conservative and surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1981;63:288
12. Moller M, Lind K, Movin T, Karlsson J. Calf muscle function after Achilles tendonrupture. A prospective, randomised study comparing surgical and non-surgicaltreatment. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2002;12:9–16
13. Majewski M, Rickert M, Steinbrück K. [Achilles tendon rupture. A prospective study assessing various treatment possibilities]. Orthopade 67. 2000; 29:670–676
14. Thermann H, Zwipp H, Tscherne H. [Functional treatment concept of acute ruptureof the Achilles tendon. 2 years results of a prospective randomized study]. Unfallchirurg. 1995;98:21–32
15. 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
16. Suchak AA, Spooner C, Reid DC, Jomha NM. Postoperative rehabilitation protocols for Achilles tendon ruptures: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Apr;445:216–221
17. Lea RB, Smith L. Rupture of the Achilles tendon. Nonsurgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1968; 60:115–118
18. Twaddle BC, Poon P. Early motion for Achilles tendon ruptures: is surgery important? A randomized, prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2007 Dec;35(12): 2033–2038
19. Nilsson-Helander K, Silbernagel KG, Thomeé 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 Nov;38(11):2186–2193
20. 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 Dec 1;92(17):2767–2775
21. 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 Dec 5;94(23):2136–2143
22. Jones MP, Khan RJK, Carey Smith RL. Surgical interventions for treating acute Achilles tendon rupture: key findings from a recent Cochrane review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Jun 20;94(12):e88
23. 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 Apr;36(4):765–773
24. Saleh M, Marshall PD, Senior R, MacFarlane A. The Sheffield splint for controlled early mobilisation after rupture of the calcaneal tendon. A prospective, randomised comparison with plaster treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992; 74:206–209
25. Gelberman RH, Woo SL, Amiel D, et al. Influences of flexor sheath continuity and early motion on tendon healing in dogs. J Hand Surg Am. 1990; 15: 69–77
26. McComis GP, Nawoczenski DA, DeHaven KE. Functional bracing for rupture of the Achilles tendon. Clinical results and analysis of ground-reaction forces and temporal data. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997; 79:1799–1808
27. Mortensen HM, Skov O, Jensen PE. Early motion of the ankle after operative treatment of a rupture of the Achilles tendon. A prospective randomized clinical and radiographic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:983–990
28. Kangas J, Pajala A, Ohtonen P, Leppilahti J. Achilles tendon elongation after rupture repair: a randomized comparison of 2 postoperative regimens. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35:59–64
29. 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 Jan; 88(1):69–77
30. Suchak AA, Bostick GP, Beaupré LA, et al. The influence of early weight-bearing compared with non-weight-bearing after surgical repair of the Achilles tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90:1876–1883
31. Farris DJ, Buckeridge E, Trewartha G, McGuigan MP. The effects of orthotic heel lifts on Achilles tendon force and strain during running. J Appl Biomech. 2012 Nov; 28(5):511–519
32. Barfod KW, Bencke J, Lauridsen HB, et al. Nonoperative dynamic treatment of acute Achilles tendon rupture: the influence of early weight-bearing on clinical outcome – a blinded, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:1497–1503
33. Mattila VM, Huttunen TT, Haapasalo H, et al. Declining incidence of surgery for Achilles tendon rupture follows publication of major RCTs: evidence-influenced change evident using the Finnish registry study. Br J Sports Med. 2015 Aug; 49(16):1084–1086
34. Ganestam A Kallemose T, Troelsen A, Barfod KW. Increasing incidence of acute Achilles tendon rupture and a noticeable decline in surgical treatment from 1994 to 2013. A nationwide registry study of 33,160 patients, Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Feb 20.Epub
35. Kearney RS, Parsons N, Underwood M, Costa ML. Achilles tendon rupture rehabilitation: a mixed methods investigation of current practice among orthopaedic surgeons in the United Kingdom. Bone Joint Res. 2015 Apr;4(4):65–69
36. Osarumwense D, Wright J, Gardner K, James L. Conservative treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture: survey of current practice. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2013 Apr; 21(1):44–46
37. Chiodo CP. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2010 Oct 20; 92 (14): 2466–2468
38. Uquillas CA, Guss MS, Ryan DJ, et al. Everything Achilles: knowledge update and current concepts in management. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:1187–1195
39. Khan RJ, Fick D, Brammar TJ, et al. Interventions for treating acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3): CD003674
40. Khan RJ, Fick D, Keogh A, et al. Treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J BoneJoint Surg Am. 2005 Oct; 87(10):2202–2210
41. 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 Jun 20; 94(12):88
42. Porter DA, Mannarino FP, Snead D, et al. Primary repair without augmentation for early neglected Achilles tendon ruptures in the recreational athlete. Foot Ankle Int. 1997 Sep;18(9): 557–564
43. Neufeld SK, Farber DC. Tendon transfers in the treatment of Achilles’ tendon disorders. Foot Ankle Clin. 2014 Mar; 19(1): 73–86
44. Villarreal AD, Andersen CR, Panchbhavi VK. A survey on management of chronic Achilles tendon ruptures. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2012 Mar; 41(3):126–131
45. Schedl R, Fasol P. Achilles tendon repair with the plantaris tendon compared with repair using polyglycol threads. J Trauma. 1979 Mar;19(3):189–194
46. Bugg EI Jr, Boyd BM. Repair of neglected rupture or laceration of the Achilles tendon. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1968 Jan-Feb;56:73–75
47. Coughlin M, Schon L. Disorders of tendons. In: Surgery of the Foot and Ankle. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier; 2007. pp. 1149–1277
48. KL Wapner. Delayed repair of the Achilles tendon. In: Kitaoka H, editor. Master Techniques in Orthopedic Surgery: the Foot and Ankle. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013. pp. 727–742
Authors
Asad Syed
Asad Syed is an orthopaedic and trauma consultant with a special interest in foot and ankle surgery based at Wrexham Maelor Hospital.
Prasad Rao
Prasad Rao is a specialist registrar, ST3 Welsh orthopaedic rotation.
Mehek Asad
Mehek Asad is a surgical FY1 at Royal Oldham Hospital.
