Aims. To determine whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection improves outcomes two years after acute Achilles tendon rupture. Methods. A randomized multicentre two-arm parallel-group, participant- and assessor-blinded superiority trial was undertaken. Recruitment commenced on 28 July 2015 and two-year follow-up was completed in 21 October 2019. Participants were 230 adults aged 18 years and over, with acute Achilles tendon rupture managed with non-surgical treatment from 19 UK hospitals. Exclusions were insertion or musculotendinous junction injuries, major leg injury or deformity, diabetes, platelet or haematological disorder, medication with systemic corticosteroids, anticoagulation therapy treatment, and other contraindicating conditions. Participants were randomized via a central online system 1:1 to PRP or placebo injection. The main outcome measure was Achilles Tendon Rupture Score (ATRS) at two years via postal questionnaire. Other outcomes were pain, recovery goal attainment, and quality of life. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results. A total of 230 participants were randomized, 114 to PRP and 116 to placebo. Two-year questionnaires were sent to 216 participants who completed a six-month questionnaire. Overall, 182/216 participants (84%) completed the two-year questionnaire. Participants were aged a mean of 46 years (SD 13.0) and 25% were female (57/230). The majority of participants received the allocated intervention (219/229, 96%). Mean ATRS scores at two years were 82.2 (SD 18.3) in the PRP group (n = 85) and 83.8 (SD 16.0) in the placebo group (n = 92). There was no evidence of a difference in the ATRS at two years (adjusted mean difference -0.752, 95% confidence interval -5.523 to 4.020; p = 0.757) or in other secondary outcomes, and there were no re-ruptures between 24 weeks and two years. Conclusion. PRP injection did not improve patient-reported function or quality of life two years after acute Achilles tendon rupture compared with placebo. The evidence from this study indicates that PRP offers no patient benefit in the longer term for patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1256–1265

Objectives. The incidence of acute Achilles tendon rupture appears to be increasing. The aim of this study was to summarize various therapies for acute Achilles tendon rupture and discuss their relative merits. Methods. A PubMed search about the management of acute Achilles tendon rupture was performed. The search was open for original manuscripts and review papers limited to publication from January 2006 to July 2017. A total of 489 papers were identified initially and finally 323 articles were suitable for this review. Results. The treatments of acute Achilles tendon rupture include operative and nonoperative treatments. Operative treatments mainly consist of open repair, percutaneous repair, mini-open repair, and augmentative repair. Traditional open repair has lower re-rupture rates with higher risks of complications. Percutaneous repair and mini-open repair show similar re-rupture rates but lower overall complication rates when compared with open repair. Percutaneous repair requires vigilance against nerve damage. Functional rehabilitation combining protected weight-bearing and early controlled motion can effectively reduce re-rupture rates with satisfactory outcomes. Biological adjuncts help accelerating tendon healing by adhering rupture ends or releasing highly complex pools of signalling factors. Conclusion. The optimum treatment for complete rupture remains controversial. Both mini-open repair and functional protocols are attractive alternatives, while biotherapy is a potential future development. Cite this article: X. Yang, H. Meng, Q. Quan, J. Peng, S. Lu, A. Wang. Management of acute Achilles tendon ruptures: A review. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:561–569. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.710.BJR-2018-0004.R2

Objectives

The evidence base to inform the management of Achilles tendon rupture is sparse. The objectives of this research were to establish what current practice is in the United Kingdom and explore clinicians’ views on proposed further research in this area. This study was registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN68273773) as part of a larger programme of research.