PurposeFunctional weight-bearing mobilization may improve repair of Achilles tendon rupture (ATR), but the underlying mechanisms and outcome were unknown. We hypothesized that functional weight-bearing mobilization by means of increased metabolism could improve both early and long-term healing.MethodsIn this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients with acute ATR were randomized to either direct post-operative functional weight-bearing mobilization (n = 27) in an orthosis or to non-weight-bearing (n = 29) plaster cast immobilization. During the first two post-operative weeks, 15°–30° of plantar flexion was allowed and encouraged in the functional weight-bearing mobilization group. At 2 weeks, patients in the non-weight-bearing cast immobilization group received a stiff orthosis, while the functional weight-bearing mobilization group continued with increased range of motion. At 6 weeks, all patients discontinued immobilization. At 2 weeks, healing metabolites and markers of procollagen type I (PINP) and III (PIIINP) were examined using microdialysis. At 6 and 12 months, functional outcome using heel-rise test was assessed.ResultsHealing tendons of both groups exhibited increased levels of metabolites glutamate, lactate, pyruvate, and of PIIINP (all p < 0.05). Patients in functional weight-bearing mobilization group demonstrated significantly higher concentrations of glutamate compared to the non-weight-bearing cast immobilization group (p = 0.045).The upregulated glutamate levels were significantly correlated with the concentrations of PINP (r = 0.5, p = 0.002) as well as with improved functional outcome at 6 months (r = 0.4; p = 0.014). Heel-rise tests at 6 and 12 months did not display any differences between the two groups.ConclusionsFunctional weight-bearing mobilization enhanced the early healing response of ATR. In addition, early ankle range of motion was improved without the risk of Achilles tendon elongation and without altering long-term functional outcome. The relationship between functional weight-bearing mobilization-induced upregulation of glutamate and enhanced healing suggests novel opportunities to optimize post-operative rehabilitation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4270-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe management of acute acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries depends on the degree of injury diagnosed by the Rockwood classification. Inadequate imaging and not selecting the most helpful imaging protocols can often lead to incorrect diagnosis of the injury. A consensus on a diagnostic imaging protocol for acute AC joint injuries does not currently exist. Therefore we conducted a systematic review of the literature considering three diagnostic parameters for patients with acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries: 1) Assessment of vertical instability; 2) Assessment of horizontal instability; 3) Benefit of weighted panoramic views.MethodsInternet databases were searched in March 2016 using the terms (“AC joint” OR “acromioclavicular joint”) AND (MRI OR MR OR radiograph OR X-ray OR Xray OR ultrasound OR “computer tomography” OR “computed tomography” OR CT). Diagnostic, prospective, retrospective, cohort and cross- sectional studies were included to compare their use of different radiological methods. Case reports, cadaveric studies, and studies concerning chronic AC injuries and clinical outcomes were excluded.ResultsThis search returned 1359 citations of which 1151 were excluded based on title, 116 based on abstract and 75 based on manuscript. 17 studies were included for review and were analyzed for their contributions to the three parameters of interest mentioned above. The inter- and intra-observer reliability for diagnosing vertical instabilities of the clavicle using x-ray alone show a high level of reproducibility while for horizontal instabilities the values were much more variable. In general, digitally measured parameters seem to be more precise and reliable between investigators than visual classification alone. Currently, evidence for the value of weighted views and other additional diagnostic imaging to supplement standard x-rays is controversial.ConclusionTo date there is no consensus on a gold standard for diagnostic measures needed to classify acute AC joint injuries. The inter- and intra-observer reliability for diagnosing vertical instabilities of the clavicle using bilateral projections show a high level of reproducibility while for horizontal instabilities the results are much more inconsistent. There is currently no clear consensus on a protocol for image-based diagnosis and classification of acute AC joint injuries, leading to a lack of confidence in reproducibility and reliability.

Level IV, case series.

No abstract

The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party-that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs...