Dataset Information

Operative treatment versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare re-rupture rate, complication rate, and functional outcome after operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures; to compare re-rupture rate after early and late full weight bearing; to evaluate re-rupture rate after functional rehabilitation with early range of motion; and to compare effect estimates from randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were last searched on 25 April 2018 for studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures.

Study selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials and observational studies reporting on comparison of operative versus nonoperative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures.

Data extraction

Data extraction was performed independently in pairs, by four reviewers, with the use of a predefined data extraction file. Outcomes were pooled using random effects models and presented as risk difference, risk ratio, or mean difference, with 95% confidence interval.

Results

29 studies were included-10 randomised controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The 10 trials included 944 (6%) patients, and the 19 observational studies included 14?918 (94%) patients. A significant reduction in re-ruptures was seen after operative treatment (2.3%) compared with nonoperative treatment (3.9%) (risk difference 1.6%; risk ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.60; P<0.001; I²=22%). Operative treatment resulted in a significantly higher complication rate than nonoperative treatment (4.9% v 1.6%; risk difference 3.3%; risk ratio 2.76, 1.84 to 4.13; P<0.001; I²=45%). The main difference in complication rate was attributable to the incidence of infection (2.8%) in the operative group. A similar reduction in re-rupture rate in favour of operative treatment was seen after both early and late full weight bearing. No significant difference in re-rupture rate was seen between operative and nonoperative treatment in studies that used accelerated functional rehabilitation with early range of motion (risk ratio 0.60, 0.26 to 1.37; P=0.23; I²=0%). No difference in effect estimates was seen between randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis shows that operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures reduces the risk of re-rupture compared with nonoperative treatment. However, re-rupture rates are low and differences between treatment groups are small (risk difference 1.6%). Operative treatment results in a higher risk of other complications (risk difference 3.3%). The final decision on the management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures should be based on patient specific factors and shared decision making. This review emphasises the potential benefits of adding high quality observational studies in meta-analyses for the evaluation of objective outcome measures after surgical treatment.

SUBMITTER: Ochen Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6322065 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures is controversial, and most injuries are treated with surgery in the USA. The cost utility of operative versus non-operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon injury is unclear. Questions/Purposes:The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of operative versus functional non-operative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Methods:A Markov cost-utility analysis was conducted from the societal perspective using a 2-year time horizon. Hospital costs were derived from New York State billing data, and physician and rehabilitation costs were derived from the Medicare physician fee schedule. Indirect costs of missed work were calculated using estimates from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Rates of re-rupture, major and minor complications, and the associated costs were obtained from the literature. Effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). For the base-case analysis, operative and non-operative patients were assumed to have the same utilities (quality of life) following surgery. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of model assumptions. Results:In the base-case model, non-operative management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures dominated operative management, resulting in both lower costs and greater QALY gains. The differences in costs and effectiveness were relatively small. The benefit of non-operative treatment was 1.69 QALYs, and the benefit of operative treatment was 1.67 QALYs. Similarly, the total cost of operative and non-operative management was $13,936 versus $13,413, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, surgical costs and days of missed work were important drivers of cost-effectiveness. If hospitalization costs dropped below $2621 (compared with $3145) or the hourly wage rose above $29 (compared with $24), then operative treatment became a cost-effective strategy at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. The model results were also highly sensitive to the relative utilities for operative versus non-operative treatment. If non-operative utilities decreased relative to operative utilities by just 2%, then operative management became the dominant treatment strategy. Conclusion:For acute Achilles tendon ruptures, non-operative treatment provided greater benefits and lower costs than operative management in the base case; however, surgical costs and the economic impact associated with return to work are important determinants of the preferred cost-effective strategy.

Project description:BackgroundAchilles tendon ruptures are a common injury and are increasing in incidence. Several management strategies exist for both non-operative and operative care, with each strategy offering unique risks and benefits. Traditional pairwise meta-analyses have been performed to compare management strategies; however, all treatment options have never been integrated in a single analysis. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a generalization of pairwise meta-analysis, which allows for the comparison of multiple interventions based on all available direct and indirect evidence. The objectives of this review are to synthesize the evidence on the management options for acute Achilles tendon rupture and identify which treatment gives the best functional outcomes.MethodsA systematic review with NMA is planned. An electronic literature search will be performed in conjunction with an experienced information specialist in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include randomized controlled trials with a minimum 6-month follow-up. Two independent reviewers will screen citations for eligibility, extract study data, and perform risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome will be disease-specific functional outcome scores (AOFAS, Leppilahti, modified Leppilahti) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes will include complications (re-rupture, sural nerve injury, wound complications, deep infection, secondary surgeries), strength, range of motion, return to work, return to sport, and quality-of-life measures (including the SF-36 questionnaire). Traditional pairwise meta-analyses will be performed for all direct comparisons where evidence is available, and NMAs will subsequently be performed where possible to compare all management strategies.DiscussionThe data generated from this review will provide health-care providers with a clear evidence synthesis of all Achilles tendon rupture management strategies. Additionally, these data will be incorporated into the development of a patient decision aid to assist patients and clinicians in making a preference-based decision when faced with an Achilles tendon rupture.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018093033 .

Project description:ImportanceNo consensus has been reached to date regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures. The international rate of operative treatment has been increasing, despite higher costs and limited functional outcome evidence to support this shift.ObjectivesTo compare functional, clinical, and radiologic outcomes after operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures in adults.Data sourcesThe PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases were searched from inception to June 15, 2019, for studies comparing operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting on the following: acute distal radius fracture with operative treatment (internal or external fixation) vs nonoperative treatment (cast immobilization, splinting, or bracing); patients 18 years or older; and functional outcome. Studies in a language other than English or reporting treatment for refracture were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Effect estimates were pooled using random-effects models and presented as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed in September 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measures included medium-term functional outcome measured with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) and the overall complication rate after operative and nonoperative treatment.ResultsA total of 23 unique studies were included, consisting of 8 RCTs and 15 observational studies, that described 2254 unique patients. Among the studies that presented sex data, 1769 patients were women [80.6%]. Overall weighted mean age was 67 [range, 22-90] years). The RCTs included 656 patients (29.1%); observational studies, 1598 patients (70.9%). The overall pooled effect estimates the showed a significant improvement in medium-term (≤1 year) DASH score after operative treatment compared with nonoperative treatment (MD, -5.22 [95% CI, -8.87 to -1.57]; P = .005; I2 = 84%). No difference in complication rate was observed (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]; P = .87; I2 = 62%). A significant improvement in grip strength was noted after operative treatment, measured in kilograms (MD, 2.73 [95% CI, 0.15-5.32]; P = .04; I2 = 79%) and as a percentage of the unaffected side (MD, 8.21 [95% CI, 2.26-14.15]; P = .007; I2 = 76%). No improvement in medium-term DASH score was found in the subgroup of studies that only included patients 60 years or older (MD, -0.98 [95% CI, -3.52 to 1.57]; P = .45; I2 = 34%]), compared with a larger improvement in medium-term DASH score after operative treatment in the other studies that included patients 18 years or older (MD, -7.50 [95% CI, -12.40 to -2.60]; P = .003; I2 = 77%); the difference between these subgroups was statically significant (test for subgroup differences, P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceThis meta-analysis suggests that operative treatment of distal radius fractures improves the medium-term DASH score and grip strength compared with nonoperative treatment in adults, with no difference in overall complication rate. The findings suggest that operative treatment might be more effective and have a greater effect on the health and well-being of younger, nonelderly patients.

Project description:BackgroundApproximately 18 in every 100 000 people have experienced a ruptured Achilles tendon. Despite the prevalence of this condition, treatment options remain contested.Hypothesis/purposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate the use of spin-reporting practices that may exaggerate benefit or minimize harm-in abstracts of systematic reviews related to Achilles tendon repair. We also evaluated whether particular study characteristics were associated with spin.Study designCross-sectional.MethodsWe developed a search strategy for Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase for systematic reviews focused on Achilles tendon treatment. Following title and abstract screening of these search returns, these reviews were evaluated for spin (according to a previously developed classification scheme) and received AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2) appraisals by 2 investigators in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate.ResultsOur systematic search returned 251 articles of which 43 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible for data extraction. We found that 65.1% of included studies contained spin (28/43). Spin type 3 was the most common type, occurring in 53.5% (23/43) of abstracts. Spin types 5, 6, 1, and 4 occurred in 16.3% (7/43), 9.3% (4/43), 7% (3/43), and 5.3% (1/43), respectively. Spin types 2, 7, 8, and 9 did not occur. AMSTAR-2 appraised 32.6% (14/43) of the studies as "moderate" quality, 32.6% (14/43) as "low" quality, and 34.9% (15/43) as "critically low" quality. No systematic reviews were rated as "high" quality. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the following study characteristics: intervention type, article discussing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) adherence, journal recommending PRISMA adherence, funding sources, journal 5-year impact factor, year the review was received for publication, or AMSTAR-2 critical appraisals.ConclusionSpin was present in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses-covering Achilles tendon tear treatment. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on Achilles tendon treatment as well as other common orthopedic conditions.Clinical relevanceIn order to avoid negative patient outcomes, articles should be free of spin within the abstract.